Chernobyl balance sheet, cost, maps and contamination (France)

[Christophe]

Osef the fire is under control and no radioactive leaks (a priori)...

Who benefits?

[Christophe]

Rajqawee: Until proven otherwise, no. Because in this case it would be necessary to explain why the Russians would have bombarded a power plant already under their control for a few days, which is certified by the IAEA....!

Pedro explained it…

natural-human-disasters/tension-with-russia-in-ukraine-t17111-930.html#p493749

[Obamot]

Who is Pedro?

I do not know. There is no info that confirms that fighting had broken out at the plant for 3 days.
Just that the Russians had surrounded the territory around the plant. They launched the offensive on the plant last night depending on the information available.

pffffffff...

[Macro]

I never said that the Russians or the Ukrainians burned down the plant....I'm like Rajqawee I don't know...I just watch what's going on...

I'm just saying you burn it down forum all day long ....

And that the ejection after the looping.... You know... Remember well when you had defended tooth and nail the candidacy of Obama...You remember....The looping and the request for ejection has Christophe a few months later asking him to change your nickname...you forgot....

I have something else to give a fuck than looking in the history of your posts... But I have a bit of memory... A pope's mule...

[Rajqawee]

Until proven otherwise, no. Because in this case it would be necessary to explain why the Russians would have bombarded a power plant already under their control for a few days, which is certified by the IAEA....!

The IAEA was informed by Russia (sic) that Russia had taken control of the area surrounding the plant (see https://www.iaea.org/fr, regular bulletins), in Bulletin 6.
In bulletin 9 we are told that Russian troops are approaching the plant.
In bulletin 10 or tells us that the site was bombed during the night.


So, we still don't know who shot it (and what we read in the media is full propaganda, on both sides), that's all.

Edit: overtaken by others.

[Obamot]

I said and I repeat it:

it's not possible...

that the Ukrainians are the authors.

Now we are still waiting for the proofs, with the idiots we end up having to justify ourselves WHEN WE WERE MORE CAREFUL THAN THE OTHERS and move forward inadvertently...

Then yes: "until proven otherwise"

The opposite of what exactly?

Didn't you say you watched what people were doing? When they fuck up does it count?

[Obamot]

I never said that the Russians or the Ukrainians burned down the plant....I'm like Rajqawee I don't know...I just watch what's going on...

I'm just saying you burn it down forum all day long ....

And that the ejection after the looping.... You know... Remember well when you had defended tooth and nail the candidacy of Obama...You remember....The looping and the request for ejection has Christophe a few months later asking him to change your nickname...you forgot....

I have something else to give a fuck than looking in the history of your posts... But I have a bit of memory... A pope's mule...

And the “prof” still clings to the branches (to slow down the glide...)

[Rajqawee]

I said and I repeat it:

it's not possible...

that the Ukrainians are the authors.

Now we are still waiting for the proofs, with the idiots we end up having to justify ourselves WHEN WE WERE MORE CAREFUL THAN THE OTHERS and move forward inadvertently...

Then yes: "until proven otherwise"

The opposite of what exactly?

Didn't you say you watched what people were doing? When they fuck up does it count?

Well yes: for the moment, we have many Russian troops invading Russia and bombing sites.
In the absence of "proof to the contrary", the most reasonable is to think that it is either a Russian attack, or collateral damage during a confrontation there.
The protrusion of Macro is in his style, but on the merits, you too will not agitate the crowds a little to strike, without any proof, that it would be the Ukrainians who would fire on their own power plant?

[Obamot]

You have the answer in my quote (repeated in your post) and I only said it once.
I then made a mistake by trying to justify it on the basis of sources that were flying everywhere, when there was no reason to do so.

[Rajqawee]

You have the answer in my quote (repeated in your post) and I only said it once.
I then made a mistake by trying to justify it on the basis of sources that were flying everywhere, when there was no reason to do so.

Ok. It was indeed factually expressed as such (I went to re-read your message), but recognize that a little more tweezers or presentation of alternative scenarios would have had the merit of better presenting your idea (which is moreover correct: in a war, we can end up doing some...uh...creative things.)

But okay.