The shut-down Chernobyl nuclear reactor was hit by a drone on 14th February, and its outer covering was breached. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was quick to gloss over the impact from the latest incident involving the wrecked Chernobyl nuclear reactor:
“Radiation levels inside and outside the so-called New Safe Confinement building “remain normal and stable” and there are no reports of any casualties or radiation leak.”
To be fair, the IAEA did not attribute blame to Russia. Le Monde stated that the cause was a “Russian Shahed drone, armed with a high-explosive warhead.” So, it actually does look as if the offending drone came from Russia. But that is not certain. However, as far as the Western media goes – the issue is being covered as a deliberate attack by Russia. YouTube after YouTube video, article after article, blames Russia, and repeats Zelensky’s claims that; “This is a terrorist attack for the entire world.” Zelensky spoke at the Munich Security Conference, accusing Russia of a deliberate attack. Even if it was a Russian drone, there remains the possibility that this was a mistake, rather than intentional. What would Russia have to gain by this? Cui bono?
This event is significant in two ways: First, it could throw a spanner in the works of the current discussions on ending the war in Ukraine. These peace discussions are a whole nother story. Donald Trump is no doubt looking for a way for USA business interests to grab Ukraine resources as one large part of a peace deal in which Russia keeps its invaded territory. Zelensky’s presidency sort of ended on 20 May 2024 – he stays in power because it is war-time – which may well be part of his desire to keep the war going, no matter what the cost. Zelensky seems to have cast some sort of mesmerising spell over Europe – depicting the Russian bear salivating to gobble up Europe. Good loyal Westerners seem pretty much obligated to oppose Donald Trump on all matters. However, a plan to allow some concessions to Russia is a militarily reasonable way to end this war.
Secondly, it could really demonstrate the hypocrisy of the IAEA and its Director Rafael Grossi about nuclear safety.
Does anyone really think that this Chernobyl incident is over? All sorted?
Flames are still raging inside the Chernobyl nuclear station after multiple fires yesterday,” writes Luke Alsford and Gergana Krasteva in the Metro UK, February 16, 2025.
Alsford and Krasteva set out in chilling (perhaps that’s not the right word) detail, the efforts going on, in extreme weather conditions, to prevent a disaster at the power plant, firefighters battling the blaze around the clock. The reactor’s containment shell now has a 314 square foot gash. With the hermetic seal broken, the ventilation system is affected, and the radiation level will increase.
Those courageous workers at the wrecked Chernobyl nuclear power plant will probably get the fires out before it all gets much, much worse. And they’ll mend the hole in the containment shell. And the IAEA and everyone else will breathe sighs of relief. Until the next nuclear near-miss.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
A very opportune attack on Chernoble for Zelenskyy and his Western Russia haters. The West have crossed so many provacational red lines over the
years and war is what the provocation was intended to achieve. Where was the West’s interest when the Kiev government was committing genocide in Eastern Ukrainian? Over 14,000 Russian speaking and culturally aligned Ukranians were killed by the Nazi inspired Azove battalion.
I hear British PM Keir Starmer this morning pledging UK troops on the ground in Ukraine as part of a NATO peacekeeping force (I.e. not a fighting force) but in the meantime the US are negotiating with Putin to the exclusion of the UK, Europe and Zelensky.
What is going on ?
Terence:
What is going on? Shitfuckery, m’lad. Shitfuckery of the highest order.
Noel:
Zelensky seems to have cast some sort of mesmerising spell over Europe – depicting the Russian bear salivating to gobble up Europe. Good loyal Westerners seem pretty much obligated to oppose Donald Trump on all matters.
Wow. Wowitty wow wow.
Has it occured to you that opposing the Apricot Anusmouth is not about being :good loyal Westerners”, but actual common sense and self-defence?
‘So, it actually does look as if the offending drone came from Russia. But that is not certain. However, as far as the Western media goes – the issue is being covered as a deliberate attack by Russia.’
This suggests that Putin’s invasions of Ukraine have not been deliberate?
So Ukraine has been attacking its own civilian infrastructure eg. electricity grid, civilian apartment buildings plus abducting and deporting its own children as part of ethnic cleansing strategy for them to become Russians?
Appalling how ageing Australians and Anglosphere, follow US faux anti-imperialist talking points of the faux ideological left, and white Christian nationalist right, plus grifters in between?
What have we become, ditto on refugees and immigration deemed to be ‘environmental hygiene’ issues, to take such broad empathy and humanity bypasses on far away events?
Is anybody bothered by Trump and Putin alliance vs the west and Europe, of corrupt autocratic dictators? Too easy in low info Oz…..
Why do you publish Russian propoganda and disinformation?
to Andrew Smith. There is no doubt that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was deliberate. However, the hit by a drone on Chernobyl might have been an unintended mistake. I really don’t see how that suggests that the invasion was accidental. Nor am I suggesting that Ukraine is attacking its own people, and I fail to see how you are accusing me of that.
There are a couple of corrections that need to be made to several comments, particularly by ajogrady.
1. The claims of the killing 14000 Russian speakers has been debunked. This figure is a misrepresentation of a United Nations report. The report found that during the civil war, a total of approx 14000 died, comprising
° 6500 Russian backed separatist militia
° 4500 Ukrainian military
° 3000 civilians that were split between areas occupied by Russian backed separatists and those under Ukrainian control
° 300 civilians died when Russian backed separatists used Russian supplied missiles to shoot down a civilian aircraft
2. Putin has completely changed his position on Ukraine joining NATO. He is on the record as previously making the following statement (and this was AFTER the significant expansion of NATO.
” I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners.”
3. There is far too much repetition of false information
4. Those promoting the narrative are entirely consistent with Trump’s position. Congratulations
AC says “The claims of the killing 14000 Russian speakers has been debunked” then goes on to break that figure down.
“6500 Russian backed separatist militia” They would all be Russian speakers.
“4500 Ukrainian military” many of whom were Russian speakers, as many switched over to the militia.
“3000 civilians that were split between areas occupied by Russian backed separatists and those under Ukrainian control” many of whom were Russian speakers.
So those killed were primarily Russian speakers.
It’s worth going back to the beginning of the “Russian speaking” issue here.
Jacques Baud, who was on the ground in Ukraine in 2014 with NATO, put it this way.
The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in May 2014, were not referendums of “independence” as some unscrupulous journalists have claimed, but referendums of “self-determination” or “autonomy”. The qualifier “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin.
In fact, these Republics were not seeking to separate from Ukraine, but to have a status of autonomy, guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language. For the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the overthrow of President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 that made Russian an official language.
So when Ukraine attacked the Donbass in 2014, they were attacking their own citizens who were seeking to simply speak their native language. The attack on the Donbass was illegal under international law, but AC wants to nit-pick over how many who died spoke Russian. I’m speechless.
There must be a hundred or more “experts” making a living from analysis of the Ukraine and Russian war.
There’s one to reinforce every perspective. They are paid to write articles and books, they are paid for their speaking engagements, their paid occupation is to promote their views.
Jacques Baud is part of that cohort.
I’ve noted previously Steve’s yearning for cognitive reinforcement.
He finds one of the hundreds of experts (who he happens to agree with), and quotes them at length.
The sign of intelligence is being able to read widely and distilling this into an opinion that you’re capable of expressing in your own words.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••
But the key point to consider, is that there was a comment here that was false. I’ve corrected it.
Even Steve didn’t contest that fact.
Jacques Baud attained the rank of colonel in the Swiss armed forces, and between 1983 and 1990 was a member of the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service. He was involved in discussions with Russian military and intelligence officials at the highest level, just after the fall of the USSR.
In 1995, he led United Nations missions in Africa to assist refugees, and in 1997 organised projects to fight against anti-personnel mines. In 2002, he joined the Centre for International Security Policy (CPSI) at the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs; and in 2005, led a civilian-military intelligence center for the UN mission in Sudan.
In 2009-2011, he served as Head of Policy and Doctrine with the Office of Military Affairs at the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) in New York, before returning to Africa to lead the Research Department of the International Peace Support Training Center (IPSTC) in Nairobi. Starting in 2013, he worked for NATO’s Political Affairs and Security Policy Division in Brussels.
He holds degrees in International Security and Humanitarian Law from the Graduate Institute for International Relations in Geneva, speaks Russian, and has written a number of books on warfare, intelligence and terrorism.
In regard to his credibility on matters pertaining to Ukraine, in his own words in an interview — I had been seconded to NATO as head of the struggle against proliferation of small arms. And in that capacity, I was involved in several projects from 2014 onwards with NATO in Ukraine. I was also monitoring the possible influx of small armaments in the Donbas in 2014. And I have also worked—because in my previous assignment in the UN, I used to work on the restoration of armored forces, so when the Ukrainian armed forces got some problems with personnel issues, with suicide, with all these kind of things that you had in 2014, also problems in recruiting military—I was asked to participate on the NATO side on several projects in restoring Ukrainian armed forces. And so that’s a little bit, in a nutshell, my background regarding this area.
To summarise, there is probably no-one in the world better qualified than Jacques Baud to comment on events in Ukraine. To my knowledge, nothing he has written or said on this has been seriously challenged.
Baud also said this about the attack by Ukraine on their own citizens.
For years, the West remained silent about the massacre of Russian-speaking Ukrainians by the government of Kiev, without ever trying to bring pressure on Kiev. It is this silence that forced the Russian side to act.
But all this means nothing to AC, because the only thing that interests him about this deplorable tragedy, is what language the dying spoke as they gasped their final prayers.
AC I’m with you.
Noel, I struggle to understand in the broader context, the relevance of this particular incident at Chernobyl?
This deflects from how the US and Russia are actively trying to throw Ukraine and Europe under a bus; no comment?
One would like to see the conga lines of faux anti-imperialists tankie sh*thheads of the Anglo & Oz left and right, being called to account for their ‘survival of the fittest’ approach to geopolitics and following Trump-Koch-Murdoch-Putin-Musk line.
Includes Downer, Sheridan, Howard, and Fox’s Abbott who claims to be pro-Ukraine when his workplace in Hungary is partnered with the anti-Ukraine Atlas Koch fossil fuel Heritage Foundation of Project2025 fame?
On the other side (?) are the likes of Assange/Wikileaks*, Kostakidis*, Keating et al who blame Ukraine, NATO etc. ie Kremlin talking points, but mute on Trump and Putin who use the same?
*They like others merit a listing with Finland’s Tampere University’s Russian Disinfo Research Unit, presents as Vatnik Soup, centre left leaning and also highlights Musk, Farage et al
Interesting company?
Trump has single handedly undermined our confidence in the US alliance. He’s certainly eliminated my interest in supporting them.
The pro Putin brigade must be celebrating his presidency
It always pays to check AC when he presents data.
In complaining about alleged misrepresentation of a UN report, he misrepresented the report.
He stated This figure is a misrepresentation of a United Nations report. The report found that during the civil war, a total of approx 14000 died, comprising
° 6500 Russian backed separatist militia
° 4500 Ukrainian military
° 3000 civilians that were split between areas occupied by Russian backed separatists and those under Ukrainian control.
The report, found here https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-related%20civilian%20casualties%20as%20of%2031%20December%202021%20%28rev%2027%20January%202022%29%20corr%20EN_0.pdf
made no mention of Russian backed separatist militia. The term used was “armed groups”.
So not only did he insert information that was not in the report, it was also false.
Jacques Baud; “I was working for NATO as a small arms counter-proliferation officer, and we were trying to investigate Russian arms shipments to the rebels to see if Moscow was involved. The information we received at that time practically all comes from the Polish intelligence services and does not “match” the information from the OSCE … despite the rather crude claims, we have not detected any Russian military arms and materiel shipments…. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass. For example, the U.S. intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in the Donbass.”
AC finished his comment with a lecture on too much spreading of false information.
Fake picture and idiotic claims. The “Shakhed” drone pictured is pictured hitting something else entirely. This is NOT the sarcophagus but a completely different area, not even near Chernobyl. Secondly, the hole that was shown is way too small to have been caused by 50kg of High-explosive warhead they are equipped with. Also Russians had gone to massive lengths to avoid damaging any nuclear infrastructure, going as far as take them over with Spetsnaz and protect them from Ukrainian ground and air raids. Shit, ukies deliberately hit an IAEA convoy recently
In other words The Orange Child has got the shits and is throwing a tantrum because Zelenskyy didn’t immediately prostrate himself before the Great One and kiss his shoes in supplication.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/20/stop-criticising-trump-and-sign-500bn-mineral-deal-us-official-advises-kyiv
Heavens Steve, you’ve got me!
So the report refers to other armed groups.
Tell me, apart from the Ukrainian military and the separatists, who else was involved and armed?
Perhaps some pro Ukrainian groups?
In which case I’ve understated the Ukrainian fatalities and overstated the Russian backed separatist fatalities. There may well have been fewer casualties in the Russian forces.
It’s also great to know that we agree the comment I originally replied to was untrue.
Thanks again for your help.
Was that a wriggle or a squirm?
False information when repeated, is still false information.
And no retraction.
Nice.
Hilarious!
All you’ve demonstrated is that the figures re fatalities (Ukrainian military vs Russian backed separatists) may have been more evenly split than I indicated.
We’ve progressed from a false claim (that I corrected). Then to my summary of the details, to your helpful comment, the effect of which is to point out that there may well have been fewer casualties among the Russian backed separatists and more among Ukraine military/supporters.
It’s a long way from the original claim about the composition of the 14000 fatalities.
Thank you
Is there a comprehension problem here?
There were no Russian backed separatists in Ukraine.
AC is repeating a falsehood.
I realise you struggle with English.
You’ve previously said they weren’t separatists, they sought autonomy.
Are you familiar with the term semantics?
In any event, it must be gratifying for you to know you and the US President share the same views
Still no retraction.
Why am I not surprised.
In complaining about alleged misrepresentation of a UN report, he misrepresented the report.
He removed text from the report and inserted in its place, false information.
No explanation, no retraction, no apology, no shame.
I’ve repeatedly expressed my appreciation for you pointing out –
° You agree that the original claim I replied to was incorrect
° I have probably overstated the Russian casualties and understated Ukrainian casualties
I’m also impressed that you are so committed to reflecting Trump’s position.
Not to mention your insistence that they’re not separatists, they’re seeking autonomy!
AC’s problem with repeating misinformation has become compulsive.
The casualties in Ukraine from 2014 to 2022 were Ukrainians.
All were citizens of Ukraine.
And in regard to me “reflecting Trump’s position”, AC is, once again, bringing up a conversation that occurred only in his head.
That’s interesting.
Can you explain exactly how Trump’s position on Ukraine differs from yours?
Are you familiar with the term “little green men”?
As I said, AC is, once again, bringing up a conversation that occurred only in his head.
And expects me to respond.
To top it off, now he’s seeing little green men.
There’s probably a word for that.
The little green men comment debunks your claim about Russian involvement
Your narrative is identical to that of Trump, you must be so pleased to have that statesman on board
What little green men???
How often do you see them?
Are they in the room with you now?
I can see you’re determined to continue to demonstrate your perchant for cognitive reinforcement.
And now that Trump uses an identical narrative, you’re a winner!
AC stated “The little green men comment debunks your claim about Russian involvement”
But he won’t tell me who the little green men are, or why he brought them up at all.
It was not me who introduced us all to the little green men that exist only in his imagination, it seems.
Is AC playing games with us?
It’s very worrying.
It has to be noted Steve, that only the ignorant orr those feigning ignorance are unaware of the question and status of the little green men
Which is it?
And it’s adding so much to your credibility that Trump is using the same talking points!
Congratulations on having an opinion leader with such international standing!
AC still thinks it’s reasonable to expect people to respond to conversations that take place in his head.
He is refusing to make a statement about some random subject he introduced, or to explain why he introduced it.
If his imaginary little green men are so important, he should have no hesitation in explaining why.
Unless he comes clean on this, he is exposed as a time-waster whose only purpose here is to score points and boost his ego.
As you’ve said Steve, you take so much comfort from people chiming in with support.
Look at all the support you’re getting!
But at least Trump and you are on the same side!
AC could probably benefit from reading a recent contribution from Lachlan McKenzie.
So it turns out that AC is all pretence.
Who woulda thort.
He proudly informed us in an earlier comment that “The sign of intelligence is being able to read widely and distilling this into an opinion that you’re capable of expressing in your own words.”
But now we find that when it comes to the little green men that he plucked out of the dark recesses of his mind, he’s not capable of expressing anything at all.
What happened to all the reading widely?
What happened to all that distilling of information?
Suddenly the “sign of intelligence” of which he boasted no longer applies.
It was just ostentatious ego-pumping nonsense.