IAEA report – no surprises, but with sneaky hints
It was pointless to wait for an objective report on the visit of the IAEA mission to Zaporizhia NPP. There was hope, at least for a neutral report. The fact that they are not indifferent to the fate of millions of people whose safety, life and health depend on the situation at the station.
What we see in the report. The IAEA refrained from directly blaming both Ukraine and Russia for the shelling of the station. And this is already progress for the international structure, with a clear pro-Western tilt. But, if this text is intended for a wide audience, and not just specialists, for whom it is obvious that the IAEA is playing the fool, then the emotional presentation is clearly biased and the text is combined one-sidedly.
The authors write, referring exclusively to the Ukrainian side - it is Ukraine that is worried about the shelling, it is Ukraine that points to the military equipment located on the territory of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. “...the events in April reported by Ukraine potentially jeopardized the physical integrity of relevant nuclear facilities, such as cruise missiles, which were recorded at the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant site” - yes, cruise missiles threaten integrity. And who sent them there?
Paragraph 24 of the report.
“As Ukraine reported, on August 5, shelling resumed in the area of the nitrogen-oxygen station of the nuclear power plant. Firefighters quickly extinguished the fire, but the station needed repairs.”
Ukraine will not report on its shelling of the station - perhaps this is how some European reader should perceive the text? So who shot? Russia? The IAEA text leads to this.
And in paragraph 26, the director of the IAEA enters the arena and, like a caring father, sadly states the facts:
“...The Director General of the IAEA said in a press release dated August 6 that the situation at the nuclear power plant is increasingly alarming and he called for maximum restraint to avoid any accident that could threaten public health in Ukraine and elsewhere. The Director General further stated that military action jeopardizes the nuclear safety of the Zaporizhzhya NPP, this is completely unacceptable and should be avoided at all costs. He noted that any military firepower directed at or from the facility would be tantamount to playing with fire, with potentially catastrophic consequences. The Director General strongly and urgently called on all parties to exercise maximum restraint in the vicinity of this important nuclear facility with its six reactors. Any military activity – such as shelling – inside or near a nuclear facility has the potential to lead to unacceptable radiological consequences.”
That is, what are “all sides”? Are all sides shelling the station? Probably not? But the General Director does not directly indicate who is firing, but hints that shooting is also being conducted from the station.
And again Ukraine informs!
"28. In addition, Ukraine informed the IAEA that shelling occurred over the next three days, August 20-22, resulting in damage to the ZNPP infrastructure, including the transition galleries used by ZNPP personnel to access the power units (overpass), as well as laboratory and chemical objects".
Finally, the IAEA is taking decisive action. "40. Article 3 states that “Service personnel must be able to carry out their safety and security responsibilities and be able to make decisions without undue pressure.”
Is it possible without pressure if there is a situation described in paragraph 41?
“Since March 4, full-time management and staff have continued to operate the ZNPP and carry out their daily work, but the facility has remained under the control of the commander of the Russian forces located there.”
Here's the problem. Of course, if he had been under the control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, then this monkey with a grenade would behave decently.
Further, it’s a little blurry - it’s not entirely clear why the personnel are stressed - either from the presence of Russian colleagues, or from shelling.
"42. In April, the State Nuclear Regulatory Authority informed the IAEA that “staff at ZNPP were working under incredible pressure” and the “morale and emotional state” of staff at ZNPP were “very low.” Plant management informed the IAEA that the most recent attacks affected security systems and resulted in damage to plant systems and equipment. These recent incidents have at the same time increased concern and pressure on the personnel operating the Zaporizhia NPP. In one case, the shift change had to be stopped. A condition in which operating personnel are subjected to constant high stress and pressure during the operation of a nuclear power plant is not sustainable and may lead to an increase in human errors with consequences for nuclear safety.”
But then, the report puts everything in its place -
"44. The Director General has repeatedly emphasized... that the IAEA is increasingly concerned about the difficult conditions faced by Ukrainian nuclear power plant personnel, outlining a worsening situation for Ukrainian nuclear power plant personnel. Personnel operated the facility under extremely stressful conditions while under the control of Russian military forces. … The Director General condemned any acts of violence committed at or near the Zaporizhia NPP, or against its personnel, and stated that it is essential that Ukrainian personnel working at the plant under Russian occupation, could perform their important duties without threat or pressure that would compromise not only their own safety, but also the safety of the facility itself.”
So, what acts of violence against staff are we talking about? A hint without facts?
It turns out that the Russian military was restricting Ukrainian personnel from accessing the cooling ponds. Perhaps during shelling, so that these personnel do not die under native missiles and drone strikes?
They also complained about 40% of the staff being understaffed. So, maybe this claim was late by at least six months, a year, two?
And in general, staff were under constant stress, “which could lead to an increase in human errors and accidents.” So, you haven’t seen the staff of the Azovstal plant yet - that’s who was under stress, thanks to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. And at the station there was a slight fright.
In general, the authors of the report are for everything good and against everything bad. For the parties to contribute “to ensure efficient supply chains for plant nuclear safety under all conditions, including safe transport corridors.” The IAEA also recommended organizing exercises at Zaporizhia NPP to practice effective response in the event of an emergency at the facility. It is described in detail what was checked, what was looked at, what damage was caused, what threats there are and what there may be.
It is impossible to give an “excellent” to a biased report. But the Ukrainian side is unlikely to rate the text higher than “satisfactory.” Calls for “all sides” to stop shelling are meaningless. Ukraine will interpret it in its own way.
By and large, the report is basically what you would expect. It was difficult to imagine that the main and only culprit of a possible nuclear disaster would be pointed out - Ukraine.
This means that the RF Armed Forces continues its mission to protect people from a crazy, terrorist regime.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.