Attacks on Ukraine's nuclear plant put world at risk, IAEA warns ( www.euronews.com )

"We're getting dangerously close to a nuclear accident," IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said following multiple attacks against the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said attacks against Europe’s largest nuclear power plant have put the world “dangerously close to a nuclear accident”.

Without attributing blame, IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said his agency has been able to confirm three attacks against the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant since 7 April.

“These reckless attacks must cease immediately,” he told the Security Council on Monday. “Though, fortunately, they have not led to a radiological incident this time, they significantly increase the risk … where nuclear safety is already compromised.”

Rapidcreek ,

It would, IMO, bring NATO into the war.

wintermute_oregon ,

And I should at that point. I’m strongly opposed to US troops in Ukraine to fight the war.

That said, attacking the power plant is a red line for me. That is an attack on the world.

lltnskyc ,

bring NATO into the war

[it?] should at that point

That said, attacking the power plant is a red line for me. That is an attack on the world.

Are you suggesting that NATO joins Russia in fighting Ukraine due to Ukraine doing "an attack on the world"? I don't see this happening..
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant was seized and is controlled by Russia for more than 2 years now. So the attacks are coming from Ukrainian side. You do understand that, do you?

PlutoniumAcid ,
@PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world avatar

I think you read that the wrong way 'round. It makes sense to me, in the context of being against the stupid Russians.

lltnskyc ,

What exactly did I read the wrong way 'round?

PlutoniumAcid ,
@PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world avatar

Because Russia deliberately attack the power plant, that is an attack on the world. It seems to me that you read it as if Ukraine did this attack?

lltnskyc ,

I did not read that "Ukraine did this attack", as a matter of fact article does not say who attacked it, because they "lack evidence".
It's just the only way I see how one can believe that the attack was done by Russia, is a conspiracy theory that Russia attacks its own territory.
On the other one, Ukraine attacking it is perfectly logical because they are attacking a territory of their enemy that they do not control.

TheOctonaut ,

Do you understand that Ukraine does not see the south of its own country as "enemy territory"?

lltnskyc ,

So, are you saying that Ukraine is not bombing the territories occupied by Russia?
And how do you define an "enemy territory"? Because from my definition of "enemy territory", any territory occupied by your enemy, territory on which it resides and controls is "enemy territory"...

TheOctonaut ,

No, I'm saying they are very unlikely to want a second nuclear disaster on the land they want to control.

Your definition is your own and not a very useful one, because by your definition any territory lost is immediately your enemies' territory now and you become the aggressor for trying to regain your own land. Do you think Ukraine are the aggressors?

lltnskyc ,

No, I’m saying they are very unlikely to want a second nuclear disaster on the land they want to control.

And Russia does? They also want to (and in fact do, and are more likely to keep it so) control that land.

Your definition is your own

Indeed. You can share yours and we can discuss it as well.

any territory lost is immediately your enemies’ territory

Well, yes, this is how it works. Territory belongs to whoever controls it. Ukraine can claim it owns Crimea, Donbas and even Moscow itself, but what does it matter if Russia controls it? It's Russia's territory now regardless of what Ukraine and/or international law say. And to take it back they will need to conduct military actions on that territory (which belongs to enemy now, and therefore is "enemy territory"), including bombing it, conducting drone strikes (wherever they deem necessary, including nuclear power plants), etc.
Whose territory is Falkand Islands, Argentina or UK? Whose territory is mainland China, ROC or PRC? Whose territory is Taiwan, PRC or ROC? Whose territory is Northern Cyprus, Republic of Cyprus or Turkey? Depending on your political views you may have different answers to those questions, but in the reality they are controlled by the latter countries, so it is their territory, regardless of what you think. The same situation with south of Ukraine. It of course works the other way around as well, Russia claims that all of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast is theirs, which is not true because they do not control all of it.

Do you think Ukraine are the aggressors?

No.

And anyway, "whose territory it is" is a bikeshedding that does not matter.
What matters are facts - and the facts are that Russia controls the territory that the strike was conducted on. Are you disputing that?
And saying that Russia attacked a territory that it controls, without backing up those claims is a conspiracy theory, don't you think?

PlutoniumAcid ,
@PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world avatar

It's simple. Ukraine is fighting to get their home land back. They are smart and will not destroy the power plant. This is undeniable fact.

On the other hand, Russia is driven by a power hungry maniac, and they have shelled the plant before. They also had their troops dig trenches in the irradiated soil - poor sods will all die from cancer, if not from acute lead poisoning. This is also undeniable fact.

If we agree on this, let's have a discussion. If not, I will consider you an unusually eloquent but still Russian troll and block you for wasting my time.

lltnskyc ,

They are smart and will not destroy the power plant. This is undeniable fact.

This is not a fact, this is an opinion.

Feel free to block me now :)

wintermute_oregon ,

Did you read the article?

lltnskyc ,

Yes, I did. What part of my comment makes you think otherwise?

wintermute_oregon ,

The fact you said it was Ukraine when the article says otherwise.

lltnskyc ,

The article does not say otherwise.
The article says

The remote-controlled nature of the drones that have attacked the plant means that it is not possible to determine who launched them

So you would rather believe a conspiracy theory (or what else would you call that?) that Russia is repeatedly (!) attacking itself, it's own territory that it controls for more than 2 years, than that Ukraine is attacking the territory of its enemy?

wintermute_oregon ,

It isn’t Russian territory. It’s occupied Ukraine.

lltnskyc ,

This is correct from the viewpoint of Ukraine (and its allies)!
But according to Russia and Russian laws - it is Russian territory now.
According to the facts, it is fully controlled by Russia for 2 years now (are you arguing with that?).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_annexation_of_Donetsk,_Kherson,_Luhansk_and_Zaporizhzhia_oblasts_of_Ukraine
Note that we are not talking about whether it is legal by international law, whether it's recognized by the rest of the world, etc. The fact is according to Russia it is Russian territory, and the fact is that it has full control over it. And so we are getting back to my question

you would rather believe a conspiracy theory (or what else would you call that?) that Russia is repeatedly (!) attacking itself, it’s own territory that it controls for more than 2 years, than that Ukraine is attacking the territory of its enemy?

wintermute_oregon ,

According to international law. It’s Ukraine.

lltnskyc ,

But I did address that in my comment, didn't I?
What does it matter if the international law says so, if in fact the territory is fully controlled by Russia? International law can say that Russia does not exist at all, it would not change the fact that it does exist, would it?

Daxtron2 ,

It wouldn't be the first time Russia did false flag attacks on itself to garnish support.

lltnskyc ,

There is a possibility that this a false flag, sure!
But to claim that something is a false flag you need to back it up with something better than "they did that in the past so this surely must be it", don't you think?
When countries A and B are at war, and there's an attack happening on the territory of country B, is your first thought "this must be a false flag" or "this must be an attack by country A"?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • world@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •