Chornobyl – not "Chernobyl". Why one letter matters in 2026

In 2026, the world marks the 40th anniversary of the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster – an event that forever changed Ukraine and impacted the entire world. These days, international media and organizations are increasingly writing about Chornobyl. And yet, they still make a mistake that may seem minor, but in fact carries weight.

It is about a single letter – and the continued use in global texts of the Russian transliteration “Chernobyl” instead of the Ukrainian “Chornobyl.”

At first glance, this may not seem critical. But in reality, using the Ukrainian transliteration is a matter of voice, history, and whose perspective remains at the center of international attention – and through which lens we view the largest nuclear disaster of the 20th century.

As a communications specialist at an international organization, I work daily with texts read across different countries. I am constantly reminded that language shapes perception – and that it matters. That is why we launched a small but principled internal campaign: explaining to colleagues in different countries why “Chornobyl” is the right choice and a sign of respect. And this is not only about transliteration, but also about decolonization.

The form “Chernobyl” is a legacy of a time when the Ukrainian language and voice were marginalized. When the names of our cities, events, and even tragedies were conveyed through a Russian lens. Today, as Ukraine pays a high price for its independence, continuing to use this form means – even if unintentionally – remaining within an outdated system of coordinates.

By contrast, “Chornobyl” is another step toward affirming Ukrainian identity in the international context. In communication, words and the choices behind them carry significant weight – and, crucially, signal a position. Words shape discourse, set frameworks, and influence how history enters the global context. If we are speaking about an event that took place in Ukraine, it is both logical and correct to refer to it by its Ukrainian name.

There is also a symbolic dimension. Today, Ukraine is defending not only its territory, but also its right to be heard – in its own language, with its own words and its own names. In this context, even the replacement of a single letter becomes an act of respect.

We have already seen how this works. The “Kyiv not Kiev” campaign once seemed excessive or untimely to many. Yet it significantly helped shift the international norm. Today, “Kyiv” is the standard across most global media, railway stations, and beyond. The same is happening with “Chornobyl” – the process is simply still ongoing.

Equally important is how we talk about this. It should not be about blame or “calling out mistakes,” but rather about gentle, thoughtful explanation and consistent engagement with colleagues, editors, and partners – many of whom, at this historical moment, are ready to listen and evolve in their understanding of “Chernobyl.” It is worth explaining that single, then dozens, then hundreds of small decisions in teams, editorial rooms, texts, and comments can collectively make a small but meaningful step toward consistent decolonization from Russia. It works – we have seen it within our own team.

At a time when Ukraine is fighting for its independence, even a single letter can become part of that struggle. A small change from “E” to “O” is also a sign of respect – for our struggle, for our voice, and for our right to name ourselves in our own words.

I believe that the world will gradually, but surely, learn to see Ukraine not through чужу оптику, but through its own – Ukrainian – perspective. With its authentic names.