sabotages IAEA experts' visit to Zaporizhia nuclear plant
.
If Kyiv is to be believed, which Western “quality media” almost unconditionally does, Russia is shooting itself all day long. When civilians are being shelled by artillery in Donetsk, it is said to be Russia. When the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhia, which is under Russian control, is fired upon, it is said to be Russia. In Russia, even serious news programs now only ironically comment on this with formulations of this kind: “According to the West, Russia is shooting at its own civilians, soldiers and the nuclear power plant with NATO weapons. We only shoot at ourselves all day long, using the weapons that NATO supplied to Ukraine.”
.
The problem is that this bombardment - also at the nuclear power plant - is carried out with weapons that NATO has supplied to Kyiv. These are, for example, the M777 howitzers of the USA with the NATO caliber 155 millimeters. But these details are not reported in the West, they would disturb the desired picture too much.
.
Who benefits from the shelling of the nuclear power plant?
The question of who benefits from the shelling of the nuclear power plant sounds absurd, because how can anyone benefit from a possible nuclear catastrophe? But there are actually motives for the shelling of the nuclear power plant.
Russia would have no benefit from shelling the nuclear power plant, because the radioactive radiation would hit Russia and since the West with its media power is already accusing Russia, many people and perhaps also states would blame Russia for a possible catastrophe. That would weaken Russia's position on the international stage and would be a pretext for new sanctions. What's more, this could trigger the NATO defense case and lead to a war with NATO itself. So how would Russia benefit from this?
The situation is different in Kiev, because if, for example, Kyiv is counting on the fact that the nuclear power plant itself will not be damaged by the shelling, which could lead to a super meltdown, but "only" the storage of the nuclear fuel rods, which are located on the site of the nuclear power plant, the leakage of radioactivity would be relatively small, but the propaganda effect would be gigantic if you can blame it on Russia. Moreover, since the escalation of the Ukrainian war in February, the Kiev government's greatest wish has been to draw NATO into its war with Russia. So the Kiev government definitely has motives for shelling the nuclear power plant.
.
The situation in Washington is even clearer, because for the US all this is far away and a nuclear catastrophe in Europe would not affect the US. The US also has a desire to spread new horror stories about Russia's alleged barbarism in order to persuade more countries around the world to join the anti-Russian policies and sanctions.
And since interest in what is happening in Ukraine is waning in the West and around the world, which is having a negative impact on the supply of arms and other support to Kiev, Kyiv and Washington are very keen to regain this interest in Ukraine and the West To show the public that they must suffer, freeze and starve in order to put evil Russia in its place.
The motives are therefore clear and it is not Russia that benefits from the shelling of the nuclear power plant.
Kyiv admits the shelling
You don't even have to speculate who is shooting at the nuclear power plant. One only has to listen to the statements from Kyiv, which for some reason do not make the headlines in the Western media.
In mid-August, Ukrainian President Zelensky warned Russian soldiers near the nuclear power plant that they were targets for the Ukrainian army. Selensky spoke explicitly of Russian soldiers who allegedly used the nuclear power plant as cover, implying that there were Russian positions on the nuclear power plant site. That is – I know this firsthand from journalists who have visited the nuclear power plant – definitely not the case. But Selensky openly justifies the shelling of the nuclear power plant.
On August 30, the IAEA reported that its experts had arrived in Kyiv to travel from there to the nuclear power plant. This confirms once again that the Russian reports of the last few months were correct and that it was Kyiv that prevented the visit for months, because if it were the other way around, the IAEA experts would have had to be in Kyiv a long time ago to be able to anticipate the Kyiv allowed to wait, but refused by Russia to visit the nuclear power plant. However, it is now completely clear that Kyiv has only now let the experts into Ukraine.
Russia guarantees the safety of the experts "taking into account the risks that are constantly present there and that are associated with the incessant shelling from the Ukrainian side."
The IAEA experts who will visit the nuclear power plant come from Albania, China, France, Italy, Jordan, Lithuania, Mexico, Poland, Serbia and North Macedonia. Since reports by such experts, as experience with the OPCW shows, are now mostly politicized, it is questionable whether they will come to a common conclusion. It can be assumed that no matter what they see on the ground, the experts from Lithuania and Poland in particular will blame Russia, while the experts from China and Serbia are also expected to be more on the side of Russia. It is questionable whether the IAEA experts will produce a joint report under these circumstances.
Russian analysts suspect that the increased shelling of the Kyiv nuclear power plant is intended to provide an excuse to cancel the experts' visit after all. The visit has been announced for this week, but the next few days will show whether it can actually take place.
www.anti-spiegel.ru
