One major oil refinery was damaged by the attack, with a fire breaking out following a Ukrainian missile strike.
The attacks caused significant damage to key Russian infrastructure
Ukraine launched a major drone attack on Russia's oil refineries
On March 12, Ukraine launched a major drone attack on Russia's oil refineries. The attacks were part of an ongoing conflict between the two countries that has been going on for over two years. According to reports, Ukrainian forces used dozens of drones and rockets in the attack, causing significant damage to key Russian infrastructure. One major oil refinery was damaged by the attack, with a fire breaking out following a Ukrainian missile strike.
Ukraine continues to target Russia's oil and gas infrastructure.
A drone smashed into a refinery in the town of Oryol, some 160km (99 miles) from the Ukraine border. An emergency services official quoted by Russian state news agency RIA Novosti said a tank containing petroleum products caught fire.
Accuracy
A drone also smashed into a refinery in the town of Oryol, some 160km (99 miles) from the Ukraine border, according to Andrey Klychkov, governor of the Oryol region. An emergency services official quoted by Russian state news agency RIA Novosti said a tank containing petroleum products caught fire.
The largest oil refining unit at Lukoil's Norsi refinery in Kstovo was shut down due to the drone attack and subsequent fire.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Ukraine has launched a barrage of drone and missile strikes against Russia's oil refineries without providing any evidence to support this claim. Secondly, the author quotes regional officials who state no casualties were reported but does not provide any information on how they know this or if there are any other sources confirming these claims. Thirdly, the article uses sensationalist language such as
The overnight attacks hit refineries in towns hundreds of miles apart in the Nizhny Novgorod and Oryol regions.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the statements of regional officials without providing any evidence or context for their claims. Additionally, the use of inflammatory rhetoric is evident in phrases such as 'Ukraine continues to target Russia's oil and gas infrastructure'. This statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article and could be seen as an attempt to manipulate public opinion. The author also uses a dichotomous depiction when describing the attacks on Russian refineries, stating that they hit refineries in towns hundreds of miles apart. While this may be true, it does not provide any context for why these specific locations were targeted or what their significance is. Finally, there are several examples of informal fallacies throughout the article such as 'Ukraine has launched a barrage of drone and missile strikes against Russia' which oversimplifies complex events without providing any details.
The special services are working on the spot, using all the necessary force and means to localise the fire at one of the oil refining installations
Ukraine has launched a barrage of drone and missile strikes against Russia
At least 17 people from high-rise buildings near the site of the drone crash were reported to have been evacuated to a temporary accommodation centre
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Ukraine and against Russia. The author uses language that demonizes Russia as a threat to global security and portrays Ukraine as the victim of Russian aggression.
Ukraine has concentrated fire on Russian refineries and energy facilities in recent months. The latest overnight operation saw it launch at least 25 drones and seven missiles, targeting Moscow, Leningrad, Belgorod, Kursk, Bryansk, Tula and Oryol.
>Ukraine has launched a barrage of drone and missile strikes against Russia, igniting two oil refineries.<br>The special services are working on the spot, using all the necessary force and means to localise the fire at one of the oil refining installations.<br>At least 17 people from high-rise buildings near the site of the drone crash were reported to have been evacuated to a temporary accommodation centre.
Ukrainian drones hit nine Russian cities and towns
Russian presidential elections are scheduled for March 15 to 17, with Putin expected to win a fifth term
The largest oil refining unit at Lukoil's Norsi refinery in Kstovo was shut down due to the drone attack and subsequent fire
A drone shot down near Kirishi targeted another large Russian refinery that is among Russia's top five in terms of capacity
Accuracy
Russian officials maintained that the border attacks by Ukrainian-based fighters were thwarted, but videos from these groups show their attempts to cross into Russia and penetrate the border town of Tetkino
The Freedom of Russia Legion, Russian Volunteer Corps, and Siberian Battalion are small armed formations that claim to be Ukraine-based Russians battling Putin's government
These three groups announced previous such incursions into Russian territory
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article implies that Ukrainian drones hit Russian oil facilities as anti-Kremlin units attack. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the body of the article. In fact, there are no references to any attacks on Russian soil or even attempts at such attacks made by Ukrainian forces.
The title implies that Ukrainian drones hit Russian oil facilities as anti-Kremlin units attack.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the statements of Russian officials without providing any evidence or context for their claims. Additionally, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either Russia is responsible for the attacks on its own soil or Ukraine is behind them. This oversimplifies a complex situation and ignores other possible factors that may be at play. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric when it describes Russian officials as thwarting Ukrainian forces, which could incite violence and further escalation of the conflict.
The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the statements of Russian officials without providing any evidence or context for their claims. For example, Dmitry Peskov described the attacks as 'terrorist activity' without providing any evidence to support this claim.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses inflammatory language to describe the attacks on Russian oil facilities as a cross-border attack by anti-Kremlin Russian fighters. This is not accurate and creates an unfair portrayal of Russia's actions in Ukraine. Additionally, the use of phrases such as 'terrorist activity' and 'so-called electoral procedure' are examples of language that dehumanizes those on the other side of a conflict.
The article describes attacks by anti-Kremlin Russian fighters as a cross-border attack. This is not accurate and creates an unfair portrayal of Russia's actions in Ukraine.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Robyn Dixon and Serhii Korolchuk have conflicts of interest on the topics of Ukraine, Russia, oil facilities, drone attacks, border crossings and presidential elections in Russia. They are also associated with Vladimir Putin through their reporting on him.
The article mentions that Ukrainian forces used drones to attack a Russian oil facility. This is an example of conflict of interest as the author has ties to both Ukraine and Russia, which could compromise their ability to report objectively on this topic.
The article is biased towards Russia and portrays Ukraine as the aggressor. The author uses language that dehumanizes Ukrainian proxies by referring to them as 'terrorist formations' and implies that they are being supported by tanks and armored vehicles. This creates a false narrative of an imminent threat from Ukraine, which is not backed up by any evidence presented in the article.
