Why this score Director General of Rosatom. His statements are authoritative evidence of Rosatom's declared position on the occupied Zaporizhzhia plant and unreliable as evidence about the plant's actual condition; he is the public voice of an interested occupying operator whose estimates have diverged from the on-site IAEA account. Set at the Rosatom organizational baseline. Record as a voice; never let him steer a summary.
Tracked statements
2
? unverified
Ukraine attacked trucks carrying diesel to the Zaporizhzhia plant on September 11 in “a series of combined strikes”. “The strikes hit very close to the perimeter of the station’s site. Two servicemen were killed, and a large number of Russian soldiers were injured, some seriously. They were all involved in supporting this purely civilian mission.”
Rosatom’s account alone: the Reuters report carrying it has no Ukrainian response and no IAEA confirmation. The IAEA has since said only that resupply was “hampered by military activity”, naming no party, and that no diesel has been delivered since March.
Rosatom has "full control" over the situation at the occupied Zaporizhzhia plant and holds very different estimates from the IAEA for how long it can run without external power.
Still untestable from outside: Rosatom has published no estimate to compare, and no independent party can audit “full control”. But since the claim the plant has halved its running generators and begun cooling intermittently to conserve fuel, while the IAEA's own margin shortened from about ten days to “within days”.