After an IAEA team — led by imperial tool Rafael Grossi — visited the Zaporozhye NPP days earlier, its followup report failed to lay blame where it belongs for repeated shelling of the facility by Ukrainian Nazis — despite indisputable evidence provided to the agency by Russia.
Compounding its malfeasance on September 15, its board of governors backed the Kiev regime — calling for Russia to let it “regain full control over all nuclear facilities within Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, including the Zaporozhye” NPP.
Commenting on what it called “the safety, security and safeguards implications of the situation in Ukraine,” the IAEA surrendered its independence and soul entirely to its higher power in Washington as follows, saying:
It “expresses grave concern that the Russian Federation has not heeded…the Board(’s call) to immediately cease all actions against and at nuclear facilities in Ukraine (sic).”
It “deplores the Russian Federation’s persistent violent actions against nuclear facilities in Ukraine (sic), including forcefully seizing control of nuclear facilities and other violent actions (sic) in connection with a number of nuclear facilities and other radioactive materials and the ongoing presence of Russian forces and Rosatom personnel at the Zaporozhye (NPP).”
Ignoring protection by Russian forces against repeated strikes on the facility by Ukrainian Nazis, the IAEA turned truth on its head by falsely accusing the Russian Federation of “significantly raising the risk of a nuclear accident or incident, which endangers the population of Ukraine, neighboring States and the international community (sic).”
Nor did the agency mention a number of attempted assaults on the NPP by Ukrainian Nazis — foiled by Russia, including one on September 1 while its inspectors were at the facility.
The IAEA’s board has 35 members from a number of nations, including Russia and China.
According to the Russian Federation’s board member, the vote this week that falsely blamed the nation for repeated shelling of the plant by Ukrainian Nazis was 26 in favor, two against (Russia and China), seven other nations abstaining.
In response, Russia issued a statement, saying:
“Western (regimes heavily pressured others on the IAEA board to vote in favor of) an anti-Russian resolution” in support of Ukrainian Nazis.
“The achilles heel of this resolution is that it does not say a word about the(ir) systematic shelling of the Zaporozhye NPP…”
It’s “the main problem from the point of view of ensuring (plant) nuclear safety and nuclear safety in the world.”
“The reason is simple.”
“(T)he shelling is carried out by Ukraine, which Western (regimes) strongly support and protect.”
“Russia and China voted against this document.”
“Abstaining were Burundi, Vietnam, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Senegal and South Africa.”
“Thus, most of humanity refused to support this project.”
On September 14, Vladimir Putin spoke by phone to UN secretary general Guterres — on the issue of what was agreed on in Istanbul to facilitate exports of Russian and Ukrainian agricultural products to help alleviate food crisis conditions in most affected countries.
Imperial tool Guterres reportedly knew in advance what was agreed on by IAEA board members — but said nothing to Russia’s president about it.
During their discussion, Putin reportedly raised the issue of repeated shelling of the Zaporozhye NPP by Ukrainian Nazis, as well as the IAEA’s inspection of the plant.
At a same day press conference, remarks by Guterres included the following about the situation at the NPP:
Knowing that Ukrainian Nazis have been repeatedly shelling the facility, Guterres lied, saying:
“I cannot establish cause and effect (sic).”
Established in July 1957, the Vienna-based IAEA’s mandate calls for promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy — free from political influence.
It’s supposed to be beholden to the world community of nations, not one or some to the exclusion of or at the expense of others.
Throughout its 65-year history, the agency’s actions in advance of visiting the Zaporozhye NPP and followup report were the most flagrant breaches of what its mandate and mission are supposed to be all about.
The IAEA’s credibility and independence no longer exist.
A Final Comment
On Friday, Russia’s envoy to Vienna-based international organizations, Mikhail Ulyanov, stressed the following:
“(C)all(s) (for demilitarizing the Zaporozhye NPP are) absolute(ly) unrealistic, because there is nothing to demilitarize there,” adding:
“There are neither heavy weapons nor army units there, (just) radiation, chemical and biological protection forces, who are not combat units.”
“They are tasked to measure radiation level and take various steps in case of an accident to maximally neutralize possible consequences, if such an accident occurs.”
Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom staff “have nothing to do with the defense ministry.”
“So, what is to be demilitarized?”
“Western (regimes) know that (repeated shelling (of the plant is) by the Ukrainian side.”
(I)f Western (regimes) are seriously concerned over the danger of a nuclear catastrophe, they should (demand that) Kiev stop (its) reckless actions.”
“Until they do so, (they bear) responsibility for possible nuclear incidents.”
Russia will not withdraw its Guard units at the plant “as they ensure (its) protection.”
Nuclear plants are protected worldwide.
“(N)aturally (Russia will) not…withdraw (vitally needed) protection” of the Zaporozhye facility.
The IAEA’s call for establishment of a safety zone around the plant by removing Russian Guard units protecting it would let Ukrainian Nazis release and spread deadly radiation across much of central Europe — to falsely blame the Russian Federation for their criminal action.
To its credit, Moscow will not allow this to happen.