Talk:Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis

Explosives placed

"Russian troops have placed military equipment, weapons, and explosives in the turbine department of the unit four of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, according to the information from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)." [1], [2] [3][4]. Should this be included? That seems significant, especially after the destruction of Kakhovka Dam. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I see that the discussion of this at UN was already included. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• More on this: [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent del & reorder in "UNSC May 2023 meeting"

Recently the last para of this section, which gives a summary of the statements of the 2 protagonist, was changed with some deletion and re-ordering,; the given desc for the change was "More logical order (Vasily Nebenzya responds to the claim by Ukraine). First phrase in the para is hardly a correct summary".

Below I give reasons both desc claims are incorrect, by giving quotes from the 2nd cite given - UNSC's description of the meeting. I propose to reinstate after allowing a couple of days for any discussion.

1. "More logical order (Vasily Nebenzya responds to the claim by Ukraine)": The Russian rep spoke first, and the Ukrainian rep afterwards, as can be seen from the order in the verbatim "Statements" section of the cite, and also the introduction says after summarising the Russian reps argument "Countering that, Ukraine’s representative pointed out ...". It is perfectly clear the Ukrainian rep was essentially responding, not the other way around as asserted.
2. "First phrase in the para is hardly a correct summary": Quotes below make clear the deleted sentence is correct. Obviously it is possible to have a longer summary, but I feel what was said is a reasonable short summary for an encyclopedia. Again quoting the verbatim "Statements" section. "VASSILY NEBENZIA (Russian Federation) ... stressing Ukraine’s shelling of the plant is absolutely unacceptable." and "SERGIY KYSLYTSYA (Ukraine) ... Russian Federation’s actions ... shelling of its site and adjacent areas". So saying both blamed each other for the shelling is perfectly accurate and balanced. The first NEI cite also says "Russia and Ukraine have blamed each other for shelling", underlining this is not some WP:OR claim I introduced.

Rwendland (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, after looking at the verbatim "Statements" section (I did not check it before), it becomes clear than no one responded to anyone. Everyone was just making his statement. This can be any order - based on the PRIMARY source. As about the summary of paragraph ("both sides blamed each other"), I disagree. Cited source [6] does say they blamed each other, but it say "during the conflict" in general, not about the meeting. To make a summary we should use good SECONDARY sources about the meeting, such as [7]. It says the following in the following order:

Ukraine’s U.N. Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya accused Russia of continuing “to actively use the nuclear plant for military purposes.” He said Russia has mined its perimeter and is responsible for shelling that has inflicted “serious damage” on parts of the plant, undermining its safety. He claimed 500 Russian military personnel are at the plant along with heavy weapons, munitions and explosives. “The threat of dangerous accident as a result of these irresponsible and criminal actions hangs over us,” he said. Kyslytsya said Ukraine takes “note” of Grossi’s five principles but urges him to add several more, starting with the withdrawal of all Russian personnel from the Zaporizhzhia plant, guarantees of uninterrupted power to the plant from Ukraine, and a humanitarian corridor to ensure that Ukrainian and IAEA personnel at the plant can be rotated safely."

Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia denied that Russia has ever attacked the Zaporizhzhia plant, placed heavy weapons there or stationed military personnel at the plant to carry out an attack from its territory. He accused Ukraine of shelling the plant and said “Russia will take the most severe measures” to respond to any Ukraine attack.

Hence I am fine with describing it along the lines given by this source in the order given by the secondary source. Informally speaking, the intrigue here is that Russian forces will almost certainly destroy/disable this Power Plant using the explosives they already placed or by other means if the Ukrainian offensive will be successful (“Russia will take the most severe measures”), so that the meeting was definitely of some significance. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

demilitarised zone

This sentence from the article is incorrect: "The Russian representative said they had supported the demilitarised safety and security zone plan, but that the unwillingness of Ukraine to negotiate had thwarted the initiative. He said there had never been any heavy weapons at the plant." This is what is written in the source itself:

"VASSILY NEBENZIA (Russian Federation) said the Director-General’s initiative to create a safety zone at the Zaporizhzhia plant, announced after his 1 September 2022 visit, contained important elements that would help stop Ukrainian attacks on the plant, as well as prevent the occurrence of an emergency or man-made disaster. Despite the Agency’s work, it was not possible to implement this initiative due to Kyiv’s inability to negotiate and its unwillingness to commit itself not to shell the plant. [...] Mr. Grossi’s proposals for the plant’s safety are in line with measures the Russian Federation has been implementing for a long time, he said."

These words do not mean that Russia "had supported the demilitarised safety and security zone plan". --Ahatanhel (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, Russian side never supported the demilitarised safety and security zone plan. Did they say they support it? At least not in this statement. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

"Russian Shelling"

If you exchange the "Russian" with 360° degrees "Ukrainian" then the shelling of own countries infrastructure makes sense. Maybe the problem is that Ukranians had been, are and will become again Russians in the near future. In this way "Russian Shelling" as "Ukrainian Shelling" makes most profound sense. You don´t hack your own eggs! Or? 84.245.137.178 (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

What? HappyWith (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2024

The Bellona environmental transparency center published a report on possible restart of the ZNPP. The research says that it will be possible to restart at least one of the reactors untill the end of the 2024. Switching even one reactor to electricity generation mode at the plant, which is near the front line, would significantly increase the risk of nuclear and radiation incidents and exacerbate their potential consequences. Lightsinthedusk (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)