January 20, 2026

Institute for the Study of War: Russia destroys electric energy infrastructure for Chernobyl nuclear plant

Institute for the Study of War

Russian strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure cut power to electrical substations powering the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant on January 20, consistent with a recent warning from Ukrainian military intelligence. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi reported on January 20 that military activity damaged several Ukrainian electrical substations vital for nuclear safety at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) and cut all power to the NPP — the second time since about January 12 that Russian strikes have damaged substations supporting the Chornobyl NPP.[1] The Ukrainian Energy Ministry reported that engineers have since restored power to the Chornobyl NPP as of January 20.[2] Ukraine’s Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) warned on January 17 that Russia was planning strikes on electricity transmission substations, which Ukrainian nuclear power plants depend on to operate.[3] Grossi stated on January 16 that IAEA teams had observed military activities or air raid alarms at all five nuclear sites in Ukraine from January 11 to 18.[4]

Russia downplayed the impact of Russian strikes on the Chornobyl NPP even as Russia continues to pose increasing threats to all of Ukraine’s NPPs. Russian Permanent Representative to the UN in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov — who also represents Russia to the IAEA — responded to the Chornobyl NPP power outage by criticizing “attempts to create the impression” that “minor power outages” at NPPs are “fraught with the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe.”[5] Ulyanov claimed that Russia is not deliberately attempting to degrade power supplies to Ukraine’s NPPs and criticized Ukraine for seeking assistance from the IAEA in the aftermath of Russian strikes. Reporting on Ulyanov’s statement, Russian state newswire TASS characterized Ukraine’s condemnations of the strikes as “dramatization,” further diminishing the impact of Russian strikes.[6] Ulyanov claimed that the IAEA’s document on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale states that power outages pose “zero nuclear threat” as justification for his dismissive statements.[7]

Ulyanov is deliberately ignoring the context of this power outage amid the systemic threat and damages that Russia has caused to Ukrainian NPPs throughout the course of the war. The January 20 Russian strike against a substation supporting the Chornobyl NPP was not an isolated incident, as Russia conducts repeat strikes against individual substations and other electricity generation and transmission infrastructure in Ukraine.[8] These repeated strikes significantly raise the possibility of either destroying the infrastructure object or damaging it so seriously that it takes months or years to render operable again. Russian strikes and other military operations have directly impacted Ukrainian NPPs, particularly the Chornobyl NPP. A Russian Shahed drone notably struck the sarcophagus containing the Chornobyl NPP’s melted-down nuclear reactor in February 2025, damaging the containment structure so severely that it could no longer adequately contain the radiation from the reactor without significant repairs.[9] Repeated power outages also strain the ability of NPPs to conduct their base safety functions, as demonstrated by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia NPP (ZNPP), which has suffered dozens of partial power outages since February 2022.[10] The ZNPP has suffered at least 10 total power outages in its entire operational history, all of which occurred due to Russian military activity since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion.[11] Russia has also heavily militarized the ZNPP by storing military equipment next to the ZNPP’s nuclear reactors, stationing military personnel at and around the ZNPP, and launching drones from the ZNPP’s grounds.[12] The Kremlin has continually attempted to portray Ukraine as an unsafe steward of the ZNPP and other nuclear power plants to obfuscate that the greatest threat to Ukrainian nuclear security is not Ukraine but is actually Russia and its continued war.[13] The Kremlin likely seeks to downplay its role in the degradation of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants and ongoing threat to nuclear security as part of efforts to continue justifying its war effort, including the Russian long-range strike campaign that seeks to destroy Ukrainian energy infrastructure and deprive Ukrainians of heat in the dead of winter.

Russian missile and drone strikes overnight on January 19 to 20 significantly damaged additional energy infrastructure throughout Ukraine, particularly Kyiv City. The Ukrainian Air Force reported on January 20 that Russian forces launched 18 Iskander-M ballistic missiles/S-300 air defense missiles; one Zirkon hypersonic cruise missile; 15 Kh-101 cruise missiles; and 339 Shahed-type, Gerbera-type, Italmas-type, and other drones, of which roughly 250 were Shaheds.[14] The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Ukrainian forces downed 14 Iskander-M/S-300s, 13 Kh-101s, and 315 drones, that five missiles and 24 drones struck 11 locations, and that downed debris fell on 12 locations. Ukrainian Air Force Spokesperson Colonel Yuriy Ihnat reported that Ukrainian forces were unable to down the Zirkon hypersonic missile, which struck an infrastructure facility in Vinnytsia Oblast.[15] Ukraine’s largest private energy company, DTEK, reported that Russian strikes left 173,000 households in Kyiv City without power after restoring power to another 162,000 households that also lost power.[16] Ukraine’s Energy Ministry reported that Russian strikes also caused power outages in Kyiv, Odesa, Dnipropetrovsk, Sumy, Rivne, and Kharkiv oblasts.[17]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported that Ukraine received a shipment of air defense missiles on January 18, which significantly supported Ukraine’s capability to down a majority of the Russian drones and missiles in the January 19 to 20 strike.[18] Ihnat noted on January 20 that Ukraine’s shootdown rate for this strike package was relatively high but that the drones and missiles that did breach Ukraine’s air defenses caused extensive damage.[19] Russia has been conducting a long-range strike campaign that purposefully targets Ukrainian civilian and energy infrastructure and disproportionately impacts civilians throughout the war and has intensified these strikes in recent months.[20] Russian forces often launch no or few missiles for multiple days in a row before launching strike packages with a significant quantity of missiles, likely stockpiling their missiles between strike series in order to launch larger strike packages to maximize damage.[21] Russia’s increasingly large strike packages highlight the critical importance of Western assistance in bolstering Ukraine’s air defense capabilities, particularly with US-made Patriot air defense systems that can effectively counter Russian ballistic missile threats.[22]

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated the Kremlin’s commitment to its original war demands against the background of expected peace talks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 20, and falsely accused Ukraine of beginning the war by attacking Russia. Lavrov gave a speech and held a press conference outlining Russia’s foreign policy in 2025 and reiterated Russia’s commitment to addressing the so-called “root causes” of its war in Ukraine.[23] Lavrov and other Kremlin officials have repeatedly defined these “root causes” as NATO expansion and alleged discrimination against Russian people, the Russian language, and the Russian Orthodox Church (a Kremlin-controlled arm of influence) in Ukraine.[24] Lavrov also reiterated on January 20 the Kremlin’s rejection of any peace deal that does not cede all of “Novorossiya” to Russia and that provides Ukraine with security guarantees from Europe. Novorossiya is an invented region that the Kremlin often claims is “integral” to Russia and includes areas of eastern and southern Ukraine beyond the oblasts that Russia has illegally annexed.[25] Lavrov explicitly rejected the US-Ukrainian-European 20-point peace plan and listed demands inconsistent with terms in the original US-proposed 28-point peace plan, including the demand for territories that go beyond those that Russia has illegally annexed.[26] Lavrov also rejected a possible temporary or permanent ceasefire in Ukraine because Ukraine could “then attack the Russian Federation again” — falsely accusing Ukraine of having attacked Russia in the past, whereas Russia has been the one to initiate all military aggression against Ukraine. Senior Kremlin officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, have repeatedly demonstrated that Russia will not be satisfied with a peace settlement that does not meet Russia’s uncompromising terms or that only pertains to Ukraine and does not radically restructure NATO.[27] Lavrov’s January 20 statements set conditions for Russia to justify to domestic audiences its rejection of any terms that emerge from talks at the Davos Summit.

Drone operators of the Russian Rubikon Center for Advanced Unmanned Technologies are increasingly conducting mid-range strikes against Ukraine’s high-value, Western-provided air defenses and rocket launchers. Rubikon posted geolocated footage on January 20 showing a first-person view (FPV) drone striking a High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) moving along a road on the night of January 19 to 20 near Novobakhmetieve (northwest of Pokrovsk and roughly 43 kilometers from the frontline).[28] A Russian milblogger claimed that the signal and image quality of the footage suggest that Rubikon used a drone leveraging communications with a Starlink system.[29] Rubikon also posted geolocated footage on January 17 of an FPV drone striking the launcher and AN/MPQ-53 radar station of a Patriot air defense system near Berezivka (just southwest of Kharkiv City and roughly 44 kilometers from the front line).[30] Russian milbloggers claimed that Rubikon used a BM-35 strike drone but disagreed whether Russian forces hit a real Patriot system or a decoy.[31] One milblogger noted that the FPV strike on the Patriot demonstrates how some Russian frontline drones can now fly far beyond Kharkiv City (roughly 23 kilometers from the frontline), especially with the help of “mothership drones” (such as Molniya fixed-wing FPV drones) that carry one or more shorter-range drones to areas far from the front line.[32] Russian forces equip Molniya-2 drones with Starlink satellite systems and have long leveraged “mothership” drones that can carry and extend the range of FPV drones, increasing the range and efficiency of Russian drone strikes against Ukraine’s near rear.[33] ISW continues to assess that Russian forces are trying to exploit Ukraine’s scarcity of air defense systems, underscoring Ukraine’s urgent need for point-defense air defense systems to down reconnaissance and strike drones, as electronic warfare (EW) systems are likely insufficient to defend Ukrainian infrastructure and high-value targets from such a geographically pervasive threat.[34]

Ukrainian forces reportedly created a tactical kill zone that denies Russian forces from using vehicles within 20 to 25 kilometers of the front line or using infantry within one kilometer of the front line near Kupyansk — a capability that Ukraine should deepen and expand across the entire theater. A Ukrainian drone unit reported on January 20 that Ukrainian forces created a kill zone using unmanned systems near Kupyansk that can destroy up to 88 percent of Russian forces before they approach Ukrainian positions.[35] The unit reported that unmanned systems deny Russian infantry movement and maneuver within one kilometer of the frontline and deny Russian vehicles and mechanized equipment movement and maneuver within a range equal to or greater than 20 to 25 kilometers from the front line. ISW assesses that Ukrainian forces could likely deny Russian advances and enable Ukrainian counterattacks across the theater if Ukrainian forces can replicate the reported effects achieved in Kupyansk across the entirety of the theater, and at greater operational depths, such that Ukrainian forces deny Russian infantry from maneuvering within even deeper sections of the front line. Ukraine could significantly degrade the effectiveness of Russian infiltration tactics if Ukrainian forces deny Russian forces from operating vehicles within 50 + kilometers of the front line, thereby forcing the Russian infantry to infiltrate greater and untenable distances on foot, for example.

Key Takeaways

  1. Russian strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure cut power to electrical substations powering the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant on January 20, consistent with a recent warning from Ukrainian military intelligence.
  2. Russia downplayed the impact of Russian strikes on the Chornobyl NPP, even as Russia continues to pose increasing threats to all of Ukraine’s NPPs.
  3. Ulyanov is deliberately ignoring the context of this power outage amid the systemic threat and damages that Russia has caused to Ukrainian NPPs throughout the course of the war.
  4. Russian missile and drone strikes overnight on January 19 to 20 significantly damaged additional energy infrastructure throughout Ukraine, particularly Kyiv City.
  5. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated the Kremlin’s commitment to its original war demands against the background of expected peace talks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 20, and falsely accused Ukraine of beginning the war by attacking Russia.
  6. Drone operators of the Russian Rubikon Center for Advanced Unmanned Technologies are increasingly conducting mid-range strikes against Ukraine’s high-value, Western-provided air defenses and rocket launchers.
  7. Ukrainian forces reportedly created a tactical kill zone that denies Russian forces from using vehicles within 20 to 25 kilometers of the front line or using infantry within one kilometer of the front line near Kupyansk — a capability that Ukraine should deepen and expand across the entire theater.
  8. Russian forces are using training missiles to strike ground targets in Ukraine, possibly by equipping them with live warheads.
  9. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appointed Colonel Pavlo Yelizarov as the new deputy commander of Ukraine’s Air Force on January 20.
  10. Russian forces recently advanced in northern Kharkiv Oblast and near Pokrovsk.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.