188
Bombed Chornobyl shelter no longer blocks radiation and needs major repair – IAEA
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
188 points (99.0% liked)
World News
51695 readers
489 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.