- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
You must log in or register to comment.
This is a terrorist attack, plain and simple. They are testing the waters after the talk with Trump.
I’m thinking if Russia ends up releasing a bunch of radiation from Chernobyl and it spreads across Europe like last time (which it probably will), that will be what draws Europe into the war.
On the other hand, Vlad better be careful which way the wind is blowing.
Yeah, and you’d think it was on purpose, there’s not a lot else in the area that could be a plausible target.
I’m sure it was on purpose. I’m guessing they knew the drone would not be strong enough to actually get through the shield. It was a threat.
And just about as potent as his constant jabber about “I’ll fire the nukes aaany second now”.
Dec 2024
A Russian missile attack has killed at least eight people and injured another 22 - including a child - in Ukraine’s southern city of Zaporizhzhia, local officials say.
In a separate development on Tuesday, Ukraine and Russia accused each other of launching a drone attack on a convoy of vehicles transporting experts from the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The agency said one of its cars was “severely damaged” as the convoy was heading to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP). No injuries were reported.
IAEA head Rafael Grossi condemned the attack on his staff as “unacceptable”, stressing that the agency was “working to prevent a nuclear accident during the military conflict”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8g9pzn8z0o
I wonder who it was? 🤔 Who is the one attacking international civilian infrastructure like intetnet cables and children’s hospitals?
The panty poisoner strikes again…
There’s a video of it hitting.
There’s photos of the damage
There’s photos of the drone remnants
Chernobyl reactor shield hit by Russian drone, Ukraine says
So why does the headline characterise it as hearsay?
The story also goes on to say about how the deaths caused by the soviet-era disaster cause is disputed. How is that a pertinent thing to add?
The BBC, for all it’s issues, still follows basic rules of journalistic integrity with regards to facts.
If the BBC can’t independently verify something through their own trusted channels (and multiple at that), they won’t state something as fact, they’ll just state the claim and say who made the claim.
It’s not disrespectful, or suggesting that party is lying, it’s just how good journalism is carried out.
As for why discussing how deadly the effects of the disaster have been, I imagine that’s because people reading the article are concerned about the potential deadly effects of damage to the current radiation shield, and so some background is useful here.
Again, the BBC can’t truly verify how many died, we only have our own nation’s educated guesses coupled with the likely intentionally inaccurate numbers released by the USSR, and it’s difficult to pin exact causes on some long term effects on an individual basis, like an increased cancer rate.
I would be surprised if these numbers weren’t disputed, and so as it’s relevant to bring up the deadly effects of the disaster, the responsible thing to do is to also mention that the actual number of casualties is disputed.
Good journalism isn’t telling us what to think, feel or believe, good journalism is attempting to give us the unvarnished facts, claims, or what information we do have, which are pertinent to understanding the situation ourselves.
Like how they covered the white Swedish guy shooting up a school by putting a headline photo of a middle eastern immigrant.
It’s the Russia part that they can’t verify, as Russia deny doing it
So make the headline “Chernobyl hit by suspected Russian drone” and make that clear.
They probably a/b tested some headlines and this one got the most clicks.
The story also goes on to say about how the deaths caused by the soviet-era disaster cause is disputed. How is that a pertinent thing to add?
It’s not disputed those are just different parts of the same IAEA report. 2 people died in the explosion, 28 of radiation poisoning, 1 from a heart attack, so 31 known, then 19 with high radiation exposure died years later for ambiguous reasons, so 50 potential direct accident deaths. And then they estimated about 4,000 as the total eventual cancer deaths.
…but none of that pertains to the current situation.
Custodianship of the site is a duty inherited from Moscow at the fall of the Soviet Union. I would say in raising it without making that clear might cause a reader to blame Ukraine for it, and not the government of the nation they are fighting. Yes, Russia and the USSR are different entities, but it’s clear Putin sees the USSR as a model to strive for.
Intentional or not, I saw it as prejudicing the reader against Ukraine with irrelevant information out of context.
You already know why.
This really smells like something that directly stems from Trump Putin talks. Trump is basically going to come up with a shitty deal for Ukraine, and then try to strong-arm Europe and Ukraine into going along with it. This is just a way of saying " hey Europe, this can affect you too! You should totally pressure Ukraine into taking this shitty deal… cuz you wouldn’t want something bad to happen, right? (Hint hint)"
Some questions came up in my mind as soon as I saw this in the news this morning:
- How would Russia benefit from attacking Chernobyl?
- What is the evidence that it was Russia who did this?
I believe the benefit is making the situation more dangerous and unpredictable, which increases the gravity of the concessions Europeans are willing to make just have it all stop.
I can kind of believe that, except I still think it makes more sense for the losing party to do this as a signal that they will go scorched earth if they lose.
How would Russia benefit from attacking Chernobyl?
Russia has consistently applied wanton violence as a tool in this war. This is a threat to Ukraine: take a bad deal or things can get worse for you.
Even if we stipulate that “Russia has consistently applied wanton violence as a tool in this war”, it doesn’t follow that they would also do something that would be very risky to themselves when they are about to get everything they want. If makes more sense that the losing party would get desperate and want to send a signal that they would go scorched earth if they lose.
Who had “Chernobyl radioactivity flaring up across Europe” on their 2025 bingo?
How the fuck is only 199 upvotes.
Removed by mod
You’re bloody well psychotic.
Removed by mod
