Re: looks like starshell to me
Sadly fear & terror are part of war, especially if you're a reluctant participant. So civilians having to shelter, not really knowing what's happening and potentially getting shot if you're hungry, and risk going out for food. Happened in Sarajevo, Syria and just about every modern conflict.
Media also plays a part, and might sensationalise events for clicks, out of ignorance, or to increase pressure on participants & hopefully get them to stop, and hopefully save a lot of innocents. Russia will be trying to achieve it's objectives and force Ukraine to capitulate, Ukraine is doing everything it can to survive. But sadly, Ukraine has been a proxy since before the 2014 coup, and it's pivot towards the EU & NATO, all of which has caused Ukraine a lot of economic and other harm.
My position is we need accurate* and reliable reporting. We live in an age of 'fake news' and 'fact checking'. Trust in traditional media has been falling, and if it gets thing wrong, or lies, then trust falls further and might lead people to outright conspiracy land. Plus a highly fragmented audience gives governments challenges. So how do you communicate important stuff to an audience who increasingly don't watch TV, listen to, or even own a radio, read newspapers, or think FaceMelta is a reliable source.
But such is politics.
This story has become a good example of those challenges. The narrative isn't supported by the evidence, yet has been spun up to the UN as 'fact'. And it mostly relies on IF. If Russia wanted to destroy those reactors, it could have. Setting fire to an admin building doesn't do that. Russia designed and built that site, so would know thickness and specs for concrete & steel used, where critical components were etc. Plans for capture probably include maps showing what to avoid, and probably included specialists who could operate the plant. And there's no real incentive to allow a '10xChernobyl' event because that would contaminate Russia and territory it intends to control.
And then there's hypocrisy. Nuclear sites have been attacked before, eg Iran & Iraq bombed each other, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak reactor, then one under construction in Syria, US bombed Iraq again during GW1. We could justify that because we could do it 'safely'. Plus in the media, there's fear, ignorance and bias against nuclear, thanks to years of anti-nuclear campaigning. That's politically awkward at the moment. The EU's energy policy has been utterly shambolic with the fixation on unreliable 'renewables'. That's created the current energy & inflation crisis, along with energy security. Depending on Russian oil & gas has become... Problematic. Obvious solution is we stop tilting at windmills, and build a lot more reactors.
* Why would people trust the Bbc, when it can't even get NATO or NASA's names right?