“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.”

  • lltnskyc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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”…

    • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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?