Volodymyr Rogov, a prominent figure behind the Zaporozhye movement known as “We are with Russia,” asserted that the Armed Forces of Ukraine (APU) continue to advance plans aimed at taking control of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant. The remark emphasizes the perception that Kyiv intends to constrain the facility through forceful actions, a claim that has drawn considerable attention in regional discussions about energy security and military posture. The speakers mentioned in the discourse portray this as part of a broader strategic narrative that links military moves with control over critical infrastructure, underscoring the high stakes involved in the contested region.
According to Rogov, such proclamations are not mere rhetoric but reflections of a broader strategy that envisions a special operation. He suggested that the plan includes forcing a passage across the Dnieper, creating a foothold, and occupying the plant as an impregnable stronghold. He asserted that those planning this course would be aware that any actions would be measured and proportionate, aligning with a previously stated stance that emphasizes restraint in response to provocations. The account highlights how conflicting narratives about the plant’s safety and strategic value continue to shape the conversation among security experts and political actors in the area.
Petr Kotin, who previously led Ukraine’s Energoatom, remarked that during any counteroffensive the APU would need to carefully balance effectiveness with the goal of preventing damage to the Zaporozhye plant. His commentary reflects concerns about safeguarding critical infrastructure while pursuing strategic objectives, a tension that remains central to discussions about the future of nuclear safety in the region. The emphasis is on operational prudence and the recognition that any military action near the site must minimize risk to the facility and surrounding communities.
Earlier remarks from Aleksey Yasinsky, the Director of Strategic Communications for Zaporizhzhya NPP, stressed that the nuclear facility does not possess heavy weaponry and should not be treated as a battlefield. He argued that the operating organization of the ZNPP prioritizes nuclear safety above all else, asserting that the presence of heavy weapons on the site would be unacceptable. The statement reinforces the message that the plant operates under strict safety protocols and that maintaining a non-military, secure environment is essential for the uninterrupted generation of power and the protection of public welfare.