Atom of discord. What did the IAEA experts see at the Zaporizhia NPP and in whose favor will their report be
The international commission under the auspices of the IAEA has already left the Zaporozhye NPP and there is time to sum up the interim results. As stated by IAEA Director Rafael Grossi, the mission's experts examined emergency systems, diesel generators, block panels of nuclear power units and other elements of the station.
A few hours of work at the Zaporizhzhya NPP was enough for the experts to, according to them, obtain key information and connect the obtained facts together.
On site, IAEA experts and journalists who arrived at the invitation of the Russian Ministry of Defense were shown the results of the shelling. The first missile hit was not far from the checkpoint. The wreckage of the second one sticks out of the ground next to the sixth power unit.
Not only is there a gray reactor building nearby, literally 50 meters away there is also a building where spent nuclear fuel is stored in concrete sarcophagi. Having walked around the nuclear power plant along his route, the head of the IAEA examined the protruding tail of the fallen rocket.
Grossi avoided statements to the press and, in general, any specifics. He only announced that he was grateful to the Russian military for organizing the security of his visit and that he saw everything he wanted.
Grossi was generally unusually taciturn. So much so that even scant reports about the results of the mission in the Russian media come not with reference to the IAEA leadership, but in a retelling by the head of the pro-Russian administration of the Zaporozhye region, Yevgeny Balitsky.
Thus, according to the latter, the IAEA has no questions left regarding the work of the Zaporizhia NPP. Also, according to Balitsky, the agency’s experts were shown evidence of shelling of the station from Ukraine, the mission recorded these facts in the protocols, and the Ukrainian Armed Forces stopped shelling the nuclear power plant after IAEA representatives began working there.
However, there are no official results of the mission’s work yet. But the head of the mission was shown a map of Ukrainian attacks on the territory of the station and given a written appeal from the residents of Energodar about the need to stop shelling by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Grossi himself publicly testified to repeated violations of the “physical integrity of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant,” adding, however, that the ballistics experts who arrived as part of the mission did not have the opportunity to assess whether this happened by accident or intentionally.
“Concerns about the safety of the station will remain until the situation stabilizes,” concluded Rafael Grossi.
He added that, despite the departure of himself and the main group of experts, a number of IAEA employees will remain at the Zaporizhia NPP until September 4 or 5 for a more detailed assessment of what is happening.
After the departure of Rafael Grossi, the head of the Energodar VGA reported hits on a thermal power plant located in the immediate vicinity of the nuclear power plant, which is why it was transferred to emergency mode, leaving the sixth power unit to operate.
For his part, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu assured that the Zaporizhia NPP is under the control of the Russian military and is completely safe:
“I responsibly declare that we do not have heavy weapons on the territory of the nuclear power plant and in the surrounding areas. I hope that the IAEA commission will be convinced of this personally. In the event of further provocations, all responsibility for possible emergency situations falls entirely on the Ukrainian authorities.”
Former Minister of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine Ivan Plachkov shared his conclusions and assessments for the Ukrainian media:
“There is an international practice that defines seven components of safe operation of a nuclear installation. These are buildings and structures, protection systems, monitoring systems, radiation control, personnel, logistics and so on.
The task of the IAEA mission was to come to the site and determine to what extent all these components are being implemented and to inform the world community. The Russian Armed Forces apparently took actions to complicate the mission's access to the location - they required travel through Crimea and limited the number of days the mission could work at the station.
The IAEA specialists finally arrived, and then the head of the IAEA, Grossi, said that everything became clear to him. We see that four experts remained to work further.”
Plachkov also expressed hope that in the near future an objective statement from the IAEA mission regarding the situation at the Zaporizhia NPP will appear.
“And then international organizations and states that have signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement will draw conclusions. I expect a very serious and reasoned report from the IAEA mission. It is possible that the way Rosatom psychologically and technically interferes in the work of Zaporizhzhya NPP will be confirmed. Accordingly, it is quite possible that sanctions will be applied to Rosatom,” added the Ukrainian ex-minister
In Russia, many people already doubt the objectivity and independence of the IAEA’s conclusions. Indirect circumstances pushing precisely this conclusion are the analysis of the personnel of the mission that visited the station, published by the American edition of The New York Times. In addition to the head of the agency, the Argentinean Rafael Grossi, the list includes 13 experts from, as stated in the NYT material, “mostly neutral countries.”
The mission includes experts from Poland and Lithuania, countries that Ukraine considers friendly, as well as from Serbia and China. Other members of the mission include representatives from Albania, France, Italy, Jordan, Mexico and North Macedonia.
“Total: Head of the IAEA mission + 13 experts from 11 countries, of which...
NATO members: Poland, Lithuania, Albania, France, Italy, North Macedonia. Supported sanctions against Russia: Poland, Lithuania, Albania, France, Italy, North Macedonia. Supplies weapons to Ukraine: Poland, Lithuania, Albania, France, Italy, North Macedonia.
Is this really a neutral mission? Will she be objective in her conclusions?”, Vladimir Rogov, one of the leaders of the pro-Russian Military Administration of the Zaporozhye region, asks rhetorical questions.
Political scientist Sergei Markov also added fuel to the fire with his suspicions:
“The IAEA delegation is already leaving the nuclear power plant. But a few people will remain. I am sure that they all cooperate with American or British intelligence services. And their main task will be to require protection from the military of other countries.”
However, Rosenergoatom, as if anticipating this kind of feint with its ears, hastened to declare that the Russian side provided the IAEA mission with security guarantees in accordance with all standards.
In this sense, Grossi’s words that instead of the temporary presence of employees of the international agency, its representatives will remain at the nuclear power plant for a long time leave an ambivalent impression in this sense.”
The reaction of official Kyiv was also quite nervous. There they attacked the mission, its experts and the head with criticism, making them suspect that the IAEA did not fulfill some behind-the-scenes promises given to Zelensky and Co. before the trip - it was not for nothing that they were traveling through Kiev and the inspection of the Zaporizhia NPP was preceded by meetings and conversations on Bankovaya.
What kind of agreements these were, Zelensky himself blurted out to the public in his hearts.
It turns out that even before the inspectors’ trip, he agreed with the head of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, that a demilitarized zone should be created around the plant, but for some reason Senor Grossi’s vocabulary contains no calls for the withdrawal of Russian military personnel from the territory of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant.
“And it’s bad that we still haven’t heard the corresponding calls from the IAEA. Although we talked about this with Mr. Grossi at our meeting in Kyiv,” Zelensky complains on his Telegram channel.
Mikhail Podolyak also criticized and questioned the objectivity of the mission’s conclusions, which had not even been made public, in advance, according to whom the agency’s specialists lacked professionalism.
“In general, I don’t really like these international institutions... They often look cowardly and unprofessional, it’s not like they even got lazy in peacetime, they were never ready to work in extreme conditions. They are all ineffective, you don’t trust them at the entrance,” said an adviser to the head of Zelensky’s office.
Zelensky is also nervous about not allowing “independent journalists” to enter the nuclear power plant, which, given the sharp tightening of censorship in the media in Ukraine itself, looks like a complete mockery.
According to Zelensky, the presence of journalists is necessary “for the world to see the truth,” but then another question arises: why is he not satisfied with the truth through the eyes of several buses with journalists who filled the nuclear plant these two days and literally followed the IAEA experts on their heels.
Maybe the whole point is that Zelensky needed not just journalists at the scene of events, but “who needs journalists”? It is not for nothing that on the eve of the mission’s visit, the regional authorities announced Kyiv’s intention to bring spies to the station under the brand of “sharks of pen and microphone.” What is more here – playing for the public to divert attention in the hope of a report beneficial to Kyiv or a desire to justify itself in advance in the eyes of the world community in the event of an unfavorable report – it is still difficult to judge. As they say, we'll watch.
As a postscript, it remains to add that Russia has requested the holding of the next meeting of the UN Security Council on September 6. According to Dmitry Polyansky, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN, at this meeting Moscow proposes to hear a speech by IAEA head Rafael Grossi on the results of his visit to the station.
As for the Zaporizhia NPP itself, which has become a bone of contention, as of the moment when these lines are being written, it is operating with one power unit turned on - at 60% of its capacity.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.