Happy Independence Day.
You do know that the IAEA has *confirmed* that Russia had previously mined the ZNPP complex and had definitely been storing munitions inside it, as well as military vehicles - in violation of international principles?
They predicate the current observations (to the effect of, no current signs of nefariousness by the Russians) with the fact they don’t have unhindered access to all areas.
“As Director General Grossi said last week, no mines were observed at the site during his visit to the ZNPP on 15 June, his third in less than ten months. However, the IAEA has been aware of a previous placement of mines outside the plant perimeter, which the Agency has reported about earlier, and also at particular places inside.”
“The five basic principles for the protection of Europe’s largest nuclear power plant (NPP) ... state that there should be no attack from or against the plant and that it should not be used as storage or a base for heavy weapons – multiple rocket launchers, artillery systems and munitions, and tanks.”
“The IAEA team had not reported any shelling or explosions over the past week and that the military presence at the site appears unchanged.”
So from the IAEA point of view Ukraine’s not attacking ZNPP at all and Russia appears to have stopped booby trapping it... although Russia needs to be less “don’t go in there!” to confirm it isn’t just being selective about the areas the IAEA can inspect.
Again I suggest you consider five things: means, motive, opportunity, risk, reward.
Ukraine:
1. hasn’t got means or opportunity. Their rockets couldn’t make the plant go boom, they can’t cross the river without being shredded.
2. Only has Motive if you really believe that Kyiv would irradiate three cities it controls (including the 700,000 minimum in Zaporizhzhia city itself) in order to wipe out half a million Russians in the rural occupied area and drag NATO into putting boots on the ground. NATO might equally decide to just cut Ukraine off altogether if Kyiv went THAT rogue.
3. Can’t explain how the (nonexistent) rewards would outweigh the (incalculable) risks.
Repeat for Russia. They have means and opportunity as they control the whole complex. Motive? Implausible unless you think that Russia really has gone full tonto “all our hopes are with the famine” and would rather poison the Donbas than surrender it. Risk? They keep reminding any would be retaliators that they have nukes. Reward? None beyond it proving that Russia today is madder, badder and far more dangerous than the USSR.
So, neither story really stacks up but you’re left comparing the plausibility of Russian leaders exercising their nuclear option and proving they really would go there, to the plausibility of Kyiv committing an act of national suicide.
The Holy Effing Ukie Grail.