Russia on Tuesday expressed regret that a UN nuclear surveillance report warning of risks at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia plant did not blame Kyiv for the shelling of the Moscow-held site.
“We regret that your report … does not directly identify the source of the shelling,” Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya said at a Security Council meeting attended virtually by Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
“We understand your position as an international regulator, but in the current situation it is very important to call things like they are,” he said.
The IAEA called for the establishment of a demilitarized zone outside Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, which was seized by Russian troops during their invasion of Ukraine, in a report released on Tuesday.
Both sides have blamed each other for the shelling, which happened again Tuesday despite recommendations from the watchdog.
“If the Kiev regime’s provocations continue, there is no guarantee that there will be no serious consequences, and responsibility for this rests entirely with Kyiv and its Western backers and all other members of the Security Council,” Nebenzya said.
Western powers expressed dismay at his comments, saying the fundamental problem was the invasion and occupation of the plant by Russia.
“Although Russia is singing and dancing here today to avoid acknowledgment of responsibility for its actions, Russia has no right to expose the world to unnecessary risk and the possibility of nuclear catastrophe,” senior US diplomat Jeffrey DeLaurentis told the session.
Ukraine also hit back, saying there were no problems at the plant until Russia seized it.
“The world not only deserves but needs the representatives of the IAEA to force Russia to demilitarize the territory of the (nuclear power plant) and return full control over the power plant to Ukraine,” said Sergiy Kyslytsya, ambassador of Ukraine.
After visiting Zaporizhia, Grossi said nuclear inspectors are more used to traveling after disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima.
“In this case, it had the historical, ethical imperative to prevent something,” Grossi said.
“We’re playing with fire and something very, very catastrophic could happen.”
