> The report treated "who did it" as an unimportant detail ... it was the only reason they were invited. Might've been why they were invited, I don't think tha

> The report treated "who did it" as an unimportant detail ... it was the only reason they were invited. Might've been why they were invited, I don't think that's why they went. Their tweet of mission objectives [1], and their article over appeal made for the visit to the UN Security Council [2], merely stated motivation to "carry out ... activities in nuclear safety, security and safeguards and at the same time provide a stabilizing influence", and to "provide an independent risk assessment of the nuclear safety and security risks." I've yet to read, in those 2 sources or others, assigning responsibility for the shelling in their objectives. Do you have sources that do? B/c it sounds more like their scope was limited to assessing damage and establishing a presence to ensure safe operation of the plant. [1] https://twitter.com/iaeaorg/status/1564097055798075393 https://twitter.com/iaeaorg/status/1564097055798075393 [2] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/hostilities-at-zaporizhzya-npp-must-stop-and-iaea-needs-to-be-allowed-to-assess-status-of-the-facility-grossi-tells-un-security-council https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/hostilities-at-zaporizh...