Attacks on Ukraine's nuclear plant put world at risk, IAEA warns
Attacks on Ukraine's nuclear plant put world at risk, IAEA warns
"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.
"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.”
You're viewing a single thread.
It would, IMO, bring NATO into the war.
NATO should have been in this war from the start. This is the same shit we saw at the beginning of WW2.
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.
I figure NATO will declare a humanitarian mission and send troops in. And since it's a war zone...
NATO will declare a humanitarian mission and send troops in
Do they even bother with that shit anymore?
We've got half a dozen humanitarian disasters the world over, from Haiti to Sudan to Myanmar, and NATO seems completely asleep at the switch.
Cause for action. NATO countries surround Ukraine and will get radiation from a melt down. Thier presence gives Russia a political problem. Controlling a nuclear disaster and creating a safe zone is justifcation.
NATO countries surround Ukraine and will get radiation from a melt down.
They're already eating shit from the refugee crisis, the impact on waterways caused by that dam explosion, and the flood of food exports that have cratered European agricultural markets.
Controlling a nuclear disaster and creating a safe zone is justifcation.
How will NATO soldiers create more of a safe zone than their Ukrainian peers?
Ukrainians had NATO weapons, under the guidance of NATO military specialists, with NATO surveillance, and NATO special forces augmenting their troop base. What secret sauce does a 19-year-old French grunt enjoy that a 26-year-old Ukrainian grunt lacks?
Air support.
What secret sauce? Numbers. NATO has a half million troops. Thelargest air and Navy. Russia don't want none of that.
NATO has a half million troops.
Ukrainian Defense Ministry statistics say the country's military had nearly 800,000 troops in October. That doesn't include National Guard or other units. In total, 1 million Ukrainians are in uniform, including about 300,000 who are serving on front lines.
This, after over two years of continuous conflict.
A new influx of NATO soliders would still be operating under the same failed military strategy. They'd be faced with the same stacked up Russian defense - layer after layer of land mines and bunkers and artillery support - that will eviscerate those 500,000 NATO troops unless they can figure out how to dance between shards of shrapnel.
Russia don’t want none of that.
If NATO states committed their full allotment of troops to the Ukrainian front, that would mean pulling soldiers out of the African and Middle Eastern and East Asia conflict zones. That would mean more Revolutionary Governments joining Niger and Mali and Burkina Faso, more uncontested rocket strikes in the Gulf of Adan, and more opportunities for Chinese naval vessels to encircle Taiwan.
All so Zelensky can... what? Retake Bakhmut? The city that didn't matter?
A new influx of NATO soliders would still be operating under the same failed military strategy. They’d be faced with the same stacked up Russian defense - layer after layer of land mines and bunkers and artillery support - that will eviscerate those 500,000 NATO troops unless they can figure out how to dance between shards of shrapnel.
Not sure you understand the tactics of the United States. That’s exactly what Iraq did in gulf war 1. How did that work out for them? Maneuver warfare beats that everyday.
That’s exactly what Iraq did in gulf war 1
The US had air superiority in Gulf War 1. Modern Russian air defense is far superior to anything Saddam was able to buy from Donald Rumsfeld back in the 80s.
Source?
Source for what? That attacking a nuclear power plant impacts the world? A meltdown of the rector spreads radioactive material into the atmosphere.
Source of WHO attacked the power plant obviously
It’s in the article. Read it.
The article is shit. I have read it and read other ones that say that's not 100% sure that Russia attacked it
Stay woke retard
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?It wouldn't be the first time Russia did false flag attacks on itself to garnish support.
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"?
I think you read that the wrong way 'round. It makes sense to me, in the context of being against the stupid Russians.
What exactly did I read the wrong way 'round?
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?
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.Do you understand that Ukraine does not see the south of its own country as "enemy territory"?
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"...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?
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?
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.
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 :)
Did you read the article?
Yes, I did. What part of my comment makes you think otherwise?
The fact you said it was Ukraine when the article says otherwise.
The article does not say otherwise.
The article saysThe 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?
It isn’t Russian territory. It’s occupied Ukraine.
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 questionyou 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?
According to international law. It’s Ukraine.
so what do you want to say? That Russia doesn‘t control the power station?
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?