A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why not? In a war nuclear sites immediately become prime targets.
No they don't, it's a really REALLY bad idea.
Think about it. If you win, you will win a nuclear hell scape that will cost you huge amounts of money to control and maintain, awesome!
There is a difference between what we want reality to be and what it actually is.
If we were talking about what we want, we wouldn't have this war in the first place.
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?
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
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.
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.
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
Bring in European/NATO country civilian aid to fix it. If Russia strikes again, you now have a reason to escalate support for Ukraine (including interpreting this as an attack on non Ukrainian assets). If they don't, the sarcophagus gets fixed. Which is the main goal.
It has a much cooler name than "shelter".
Chernobyl Cozy?
"New safe confinement". But you gotta put simple words for simple minds in the title.
Crazy Ivan?
The absolute most efficient method for increasing the likelihood of american and european military powers giving larger amounts of military aid to Ukraine.