Nuclear Threats and Political Games: Russia’s Strike on Chernobyl Sparks Global Concerns
Attack on a Ukrainian nuclear facility raises fears of nuclear terrorism as Trump pursues talks with Putin
In the early hours of February 14, 2025, a Russian drone armed with a high-explosive warhead struck the New Safe Confinement structure at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine. The impact caused significant damage to the outer shell and ignited a fire, which was promptly extinguished. Ukrainian authorities and the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that radiation levels remained stable, with no breach of the inner containment unit.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned the attack as a “terrorist threat to the entire world,” while Russian officials denied involvement, suggesting the incident was a provocation by Ukraine. This event has escalated tensions amid ongoing discussions between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding potential peace negotiations to resolve the three-year conflict in the region.
The Chernobyl disaster occurred on April 26, 1986, when a reactor at the plant exploded during a late-night safety test, releasing massive amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere. The catastrophe led to immediate deaths and long-term health impacts, with estimates of up to 4,000 future radiation-related deaths. A structure known as the sarcophagus was erected in 1986 to contain the radiation, but it had deficiencies. In 2019, a new containment structure, the New Safe Confinement, was completed to mitigate the disaster’s ongoing risks.
According to Ukrainian political analyst and media expert Alexey Kovzhun, the February 14 strike was not an accident. He told The Media Line that Russia carefully timed the attack to coincide with the opening of the Munich Security Conference, where world leaders gathered to discuss global threats.
This was a demonstration. Russia wanted to show that it is not interested in peace.
“This was a demonstration,” he said. “Russia wanted to show that it is not interested in peace. It was also a classic intimidation tactic—saying, ‘this time it’s just a drone, but what if it were a missile? Do you want a radioactive wasteland in the center of Europe?’”
He also dismissed the idea that the drone was intercepted or mistakenly hit the site. “The drone flew at an altitude that made it invisible to radar. It was not stopped, and it wasn’t a random accident. This was a precise, targeted attack,” he said.
This is not the first time Russia has weaponized nuclear threats in its war against Ukraine. Kovzhun recalled that at the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022, Russian forces captured the Chernobyl plant, an action he described as a deliberate act of nuclear terrorism.
“Russia has a history of using nuclear terror as a political tool,” he said. “Let’s not forget—the first act of nuclear terrorism was Russia poisoning Alexander Litvinenko with polonium in the UK. The first use of chemical weapons in modern history is the Russian Novichok in Britain.
Kovzhun noted that Russia has been exploiting nuclear plants as military shields for years. “Look at what they did with the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. They used it to train drone pilots, knowing that Ukraine wouldn’t strike near a nuclear facility,” he said. “Each time a drone accidentally crashed, Russia put out statements falsely claiming Ukraine was attacking the plant and trying to spread fear about ‘Ukrainian nuclear terrorism.’”
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
According to Benjamin Miller, professor of international relations and director of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa, the attack also fits into Russia’s broader strategy of exerting pressure on Ukraine and NATO. “Since February 2022, Russia has sought to harm Ukraine, take its territory, and weaken the West. But now, we are seeing something even bigger—a growing separation between the US and Europe, which is the most significant development in recent days,” Miller told The Media Line.
The targeting of Chernobyl is not just about Ukraine, Miller argued—it’s about coercing NATO and reshaping Eastern Europe. “They are using coercion so that Ukraine submits and gives up more territory while also aiming to make NATO disappear from Eastern Europe entirely,” he said. “This is about establishing a Russian sphere of influence in the region, and that is the real strategic goal.”
Although there was no immediate radiation leak, experts remain divided over whether this strike posed a real risk to the nuclear facility.
“There are two camps among experts,” Kovzhun said. “One group is deeply concerned that a more powerful missile could lead to a catastrophic outcome. The other believes that the sarcophagus is so strong that even a missile wouldn’t destroy it. Personally, I prefer to believe the latter.”
When asked about whether Ukraine has a protection plan for nuclear facilities, Kovzhun acknowledged that there is a security program—but its details are confidential. “I can’t discuss its configuration, and that’s probably for the best,” he said.
President Trump, who is positioning himself as a negotiator in the war, has remained notably silent regarding the strike.
Miller explained that President Trump’s lack of reaction to the Chernobyl strike is part of his broader approach to the war. “He is not concerned with details like this attack. His priority is to end the war quickly, even if that means making concessions that favor Putin,” he said.
“The negotiations have already begun in Saudi Arabia, between Russia and the US, and neither Ukraine nor the Europeans have a seat at the table—at least at this stage,” Miller said. “This means that a bilateral Russian-American agreement could be imposed on Ukraine and Europe, with Trump later handing over responsibility for Ukraine’s security to the Europeans.”
Trump is sidelining both Ukraine and Europe, making them react to an American-Russian deal rather than shape it.
Miller described this reality as a major success for Putin. “Right now, Putin is winning because Trump is ending the policy of no negotiations with Russia,” he said. “Under [former President Joe] Biden, the US followed Ukraine’s lead and wouldn’t negotiate without Ukrainian consent. Now, Trump is sidelining both Ukraine and Europe, making them react to an American-Russian deal rather than shape it.”
As the US moves toward a bilateral deal with Russia, Europe finds itself in an unprecedented security crisis.
“For 80 years, Europe relied on the American security umbrella,” Miller explained. “This allowed Europe to focus on economic and social affairs, rather than building up its own military capabilities. Now, with the Trump administration stepping back, Europe must figure out how to protect itself—with insufficient troops, limited weapons stockpiles, and an underdeveloped defense industry.”
This shift has already exposed deep divisions within Europe. “Some right-wing populist leaders lean toward supporting Russia, while others, like Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, are firmly pro-Ukraine. The European Union now faces a polarized and difficult debate about how to maintain security without American leadership,” Miller said.
For Russia, this is a victory, and for Europe, it is a wake-up call.
Meanwhile, Trump’s warming stance toward Russia could mark the beginning of a rapprochement. “We don’t know the full details yet, but it seems clear that Trump wants to strike a deal with Putin, one that will leave Ukraine and Europe in a much weaker position,” Miller said. “For Russia, this is a victory, and for Europe, it is a wake-up call.”
