Drone attack that Ukraine blamed on Russia blew hole in painstakingly erected €1.5bn shield meant to allow for final clean-up of 1986 meltdown site
The protective shield over the Chornobyl disaster nuclear reactor in Ukraine, which was hit by a drone in February, can no longer perform its main function of blocking radiation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has announced.
In February a drone strike blew a hole in the “new safe confinement”, which was painstakingly built at a cost of €1.5bn ($1.75bn) next to the destroyed reactor and then hauled into place on tracks, with the work completed in 2019 by a Europe-led initiative. The IAEA said an inspection last week of the steel confinement structure found the drone impact had degraded the structure.
The 1986 Chornobyl explosion – which happened when Ukraine was under Moscow’s rule as part of the Soviet Union – sent radiation across Europe. In the scramble to contain the meltdown, the Soviets built over the reactor a concrete “sarcophagus” with only a 30-year lifespan. The new confinement was built to contain radiation during the decades-long final removal of the sarcophagus, ruined reactor building underneath it and the melted-down nuclear fuel itself.
Two words I’d never imagine seeing together in the same sentence
Whoever decided to do this should go toes first through a wood chipper
There are reasons that I don’t use The Guardian as a default news source despite name recognition. The framing of this headline “Drone attack that Ukraine blamed on Russia” betrays a bias or a desire to hook people with biases.
I don’t know, maybe I’m totally off my rocker but I don’t think a country actively being invaded by a hostile force is going to attempt to essentially detonate a dirty bomb on their own soil for… checks notes international sympathy?
That’s the implication being made there in the headline, that it’s possible that Ukraine did it. Sure wouldn’t want to piss of Russia by not taking them at their word I guess.
I suppose at face value I was thinking maybe more like
“Shit, missed.”
“Whoops!”
“Those damn Russians!!!”
But yeah sounds like a bit of BS because Russia simply didn’t admit to it.
I think it’s probably just framed that way because Russia never officially took responsibility for it, not because anyone believes Ukraine really did it
Exactly. Back when it happened, their reports on it were directly “Russian drone explodes on Chornobyl nuclear plant protective shell – video” and “Russian drone strike caused tens of millions worth of damage to Chornobyl”.
But russia has since denied it was theirs, and nobody else has proven otherwise, which means anyone following journalistic guidelines can’t claim that anymore - the best they can choose from are basically “Drone attack that Ukraine blamed on Russia” and “Drone attack Russia denies was theirs”.
Or simply “drone attack on Ukraine”. The audience can fill in the obvious perpetrator.
As mentioned above, it could be a Ukraine drone gone wrong. Or North Korean. Or Chinese. Or Alien.
So your problem is that it has too much journalistic integrity? It is a contested event, which extensive investigation has failed to conclusively attribute. So they must fall back on whichever claim they believe to be most credible. It’s not a points scoring exercise.
And yes, shit happens in a war. Ukraine managed to accidentally rocket strike Poland, they are quite capable of accidentally hitting Chornobyl. It isn’t out of the realm of possibility.
When one of the parties contesting the event is a lying cheating POS regime that kidnaps ukranian children for maximum psychological pain, I’m willing to believe the other party 100% of the time. Your take is what’s wrong with all the things: The monsters leverage benefit of the doubt to wreak havoc.
“Accurate substantiated reporting is Fake News.” The mantra of every despot and gangster.
I don’t think the existence of bias bothers me nearly as much as inconsistent application of bias. Ever since the Israel/Palestine thing with them, I haven’t trusted that they won’t flip the script for a dime.
Was the plant in Russian occupied territory at the time? If so, it was probably Ukraine. Did Ukraine hold the territory at the time? Then it was probably Russia.
That’s very flimsy.
The alternative, that either Russia or Ukraine would intentionally bomb a nuclear containment site in territory it plans to control indefinitely, is much flimsier.
Ukraine is the nation being invaded, they don’t intend to lose, they’re not going to ruin vast swaths of their own land for the next century after the fight with Russia fizzles out, as most people know will happen at this rate.
Meanwhile Russia’s only long-term plans for Ukraine is oil, gas and minerals. They don’t need the land, they want to hurt as many citizens as possible, get to the goods and carve out territory to restore pipelines. If Russia cared at all about preserving the country, they wouldn’t be leveling whole cities and killing citizens.
An act like that, even if it’s just a moderately successful attempt at breaching containment, benefits only one side in this.
It’s the same people who ordered their soldiers to dig trenches in the irradiated soil close to Chernobyl, in the brief time they occupied it, at the start of Russia’s war. As long as it’s happening away from Putin and his kelptocracy circles, they don’t care about consequences to friends or foes, only how it will benefit them.