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.
bombed
Chernobyl
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
Why not? In a war nuclear sites immediately become prime targets.
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.
Like it or not, that’s journalism 101. You don’t make claims unless you can directly verify them, even if they seem obvious.
And if you do, you attribute to who said it. Like the UN or IAEA.
Guardian should have just omitted that blurb from the byline, TBH.
Guardian should have just omitted that blurb from the byline, TBH.
This is what I’m saying, it’s a deliberately provocative blurb and it makes me wonder why they’re trying to be provocative. My problems with The Guardian started with Israel/Gaza so I do eye them with a little less trust than Reuters or AP. I know guardian is biased, but I would rather their bias be consistent than seem to shift gears to create buz and speculation. I’ve seen other news organizations start sliding down the sensationalism pit with the same kinds of incidents.
Every news site is biased. Read them with that mind.
As an example, one of my usual sources since like 2015 is Axios. Their site is clean, lean, and they are extremely well sourced in Washington. But they recently got a big cash infusion from OpenAI. And, surprise surprise, they post a small but steady stream of Tech Bro evangelism on the side now.
RT is generally awful, but sometimes their reporting outside of Russia, where they have incentive to dig, can be good.
Hence, my bucket for Guardian is “high class liberal catnip .” They are clickbaity. That’s they trend so much here on Lemmy.
They’re well sourced. Their integrity is leagues beyond, say, rawstory or dailybeast that get spammed on Lemmy. So you have to filter their stories with that in mind.
And this is pretty much what ALL written news is doing to survive, if they can. Because their competition on YouTube/Facebook/whatever is not bound to the same standards they are.
If they don’t, they die.
I used to write small articles for a tech hardware site. The owner chose to take the site down rather than chase the clickbait game.
detonate a dirty bomb on their own soil for… checks notes international sympathy?
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.
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.
They’re losing territory every day, if Chernobyl is Russian territory when the war fizzles out, it’s likely to remain that way for quite some time.
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
All of these objectives made more difficult if you have a nuclear containment issue inside that territory. If you control the territory, you have no reason to use a drone to irradiate territory you need to move troops and supplies through.
I’m not saying that Russia didn’t do it, idk if they held the territory at the time, but to suggest Russia somehow benefits from irradiating itself is just silly. This isn’t even the first time we’ve seen this, see the dam, pipeline, and bridge in Russian-held territory that people tried to blame on Russia for borderline conspiratorial reasons.
I suggest reading up more on the war and geopolitics behind it if you want to create convincing arguments. A lot more.
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.
Yet another example of Russia being the war crime committing aggressor in the war.
People who take Russia’s side embody values far closer to the Nazis than Ukraine ever has.
Don’t worry the US wants a peace treaty that wipes all the war crimes clean
the US wants a peace treaty that wipes all the war crimes clean
And gives the invaders all the land they stole, while giving the victims of that invasion nothing but an empty promise to not do it again.
I don’t remember who did it, but there was a good video explaining the issue months ago. It’s not just that there is a hole, but there are multiple layers in the system that are compromised. . A hole was made and a fire started in a lower layer. The fire spread in that space and firefighters needed to make more holes to put the fire out. It’s a major repair in a location that has major restrictions on the ability to execute repairs.
I’ve seen a documentary describing in detail the construction of the shelter, as well as a recent video by B1M talking about the damage caused by the drone, and this one. I believe you’re talking about this discussion of the damage by Kyiv Independent?
My first question was, why is this a target? This is terrorism and outside war rules (insane that we have rules for war instead of just not having it). Laws are only as good as their enforcement though.
Because russia thinks “we can take that and they wont risk defensing it or attempting to take it back because theyd be risking a nuclear disaster”
Its literally the exact same reasoning for why they didnt expect the rest of the world to get involved, because they have nukes.
Aside from the terrorism aspect, the remaining non-blown reactors were still providing power up until I think 2000 before it was finally fully shut down. Russia has obviously had a fixation on trying to destroy Ukraine’s infrastructure and outside of any other potential fuckery is probably concerned that Ukraine will be able to power it back up again if they need to, especially if more of their infrastructure elsewhere is blown up.
Plus, even if the Russians lose Ukraine will still be left holding the bag for cleaning up and repairing whatever additional damage was done to the containment structures.
3.6 roentgen, not great, not terrible
Chernobyl is the best mini series of all time hands down.
And absolutely terrifying.
Second to Generation Kill.
And Band of Brothers, but ahead of The Pacific.
And at the exact same site that birthed the meme
This is a clear example of Russian military interference and incompetence.
It’s not incompetence. Incompetence is “My unguided drone veered off a few hundred feet and picked the wrong building.” Someone high up intentionally picked Chernobyl as a target because they knew the west would foot the bill at any price, and this war is a spending game top to bottom. They hit their planned target, probably with a meter or two. This wasn’t negligence or incompetence, it was pure malice.
It has a much cooler name than “shelter”.
Crazy Ivan?
Chernobyl Cozy?
“New safe confinement”. But you gotta put simple words for simple minds in the title.
The absolute most efficient method for increasing the likelihood of american and european military powers giving larger amounts of military aid to Ukraine.
I remember watching a real life lore video where the said the elephants foot is still molten and slowly melting through the flood of the basement of Chernobyl and it could eventually hit the ground water that’s underground and it could explode causing an even bigger situation then the original meltdown.
Afaik it’s no longer fissioning, and it hasn’t been for awhile. So it’s not actually molten, and not particularly hot at all.
But it still has a lot of that spicy air
