Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that Russian forces intentionally struck a spent‑fuel reception building just 15 kilometres from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The attack, which he called "extremely vile," ignited a fire but left radiation levels unchanged, according to officials.

Russian Shahed drone hits spent‑fuel reception 15 km from Chernobyl

The strike targeted the Centralized Spent Fuel Storage Facility, a structure that houses large quantities of nuclear material, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Zelensky posted on X that a Russian "Shahed" drone deliberately aimed at the building, underscoring what he described as a new level of brazenness in Moscow's war conduct.

No radiation rise detected despite fire at storage building

Ukrainian emergency crews quickly extinguished the blaze and reported no injuries . radiation monitors recorded no increase above normal background levels, and Energoatom, Ukraine's state nuclear operator, confirmed that no spent fuel was present in the building at the time of the strike.

IAEA to dispatch technical team for on‑site assessment

The IAEA announced that a techical team will travel to the site soon to evaluate any potential contamination. as the agency stated, the assessment will focus on whether the impact compromised surrounding infrastructure that could amplify a radiological risk.

Pattern of nuclear‑site attacks since February 2025

Experts note that this incident follows a series of assaults on nuclear facilities, including a February 2025 Shahed drone strike that damaged a containment arch at Chernobyl and a 2024 drone hit on a radiation shelter protecting the plant’s fourth unit. Ukraine has also repeatedly accused Russia of targeting the occupied Zaporizhzhia plant, Europe’s largest nuclear power station .

Is spent fuel actually stored in the struck building?

While Energoatom says no fuel was present, independent verification is lacking, leaving a question about whether the building’s role as a reception point could have exposed material under different circumstances.. The lack of transparent, third‑party data fuels ongoing debate about the true risk level.