The US president has proposed bringing all four of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants under Washington’s control. Following his recent call with Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump expressed regret over the loss of "blood and treasure" in the ongoing Ukraine war.
While he acknowledges that the casualties cannot be undone, he believes that economic assets can still be salvaged from the destruction.
Previously, Trump sought a deal to secure Ukraine’s critical minerals, but he has now shifted focus to the country’s nuclear power infrastructure.
The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, currently under Russian control, was Europe’s largest and supplied over 20 percent of Ukraine’s energy before the 2022 invasion. It is one of four nuclear power plants in the country, and Trump has proposed bringing all of them under U.S. oversight.
Positioning the move as a security guarantee, he suggested to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that U.S. control would provide the "best protection" for Ukraine and its energy infrastructure.
However, experts have cast doubt on the feasibility of this plan, citing logistical challenges and significant financial costs that would make U.S. ownership of Ukrainian nuclear facilities impractical.
On Thursday, Zelensky appeared to reject Trump’s proposal, affirming that Ukraine’s power plants "belong to the people of Ukraine."
“We will not discuss it. We have 15 nuclear power units in operation today. This all belongs to our state,” Zelensky stated, though he signaled openness to U.S. investment in Zaporizhzhia should it be reclaimed from Russia.
Trump’s rationale appears to be consistent with his previous minerals deal, according to Oleksii Pasiuk, a Ukrainian nuclear analyst from Ecoaction.
“They’re exploring ways for the U.S. to protect strategic assets in Ukraine without direct military involvement,” Pasiuk told The Telegraph from Kyiv. He noted that if Zaporizhzhia were returned to Ukrainian control, it would require substantial investment to replace its aging Soviet-era reactors.
The key issue is funding, as replacing the reactors would cost tens of billions of dollars. “It’s a massive investment with unclear financial backing. The U.S. won’t pay for it, Ukraine can’t afford it, and Europe is unlikely to take on the cost,” Pasiuk added.
Additionally, experts highlight the operational complexities, as Ukraine’s power plants rely on domestic technology and personnel. Even with nuclear fuel supplied by U.S.-based Westinghouse, local expertise remains essential for plant operations.
Nikolai Sokov, a former Russian foreign ministry official specializing in nuclear treaties, noted that Ukrainian workers and experts would need to remain at the plants to manage their technology. A more viable alternative, he suggested, would be a joint investment initiative, similar to the framework of the minerals deal.
Despite rejecting U.S. ownership, Zelensky indicated he would consider discussions on investment partnerships.
However, doubts persist over whether financial involvement in Ukrainian nuclear facilities could serve as an effective security guarantee.
Brett Bruen, former White House director of global engagement, commented, “Putin conducts asymmetric operations and is a master of manipulation. Controlling mineral fields or power plants does not ensure civilian protection or national stability.
“This is what Trump fails to grasp—it’s about much more than a real estate transaction.”
Trump’s position may also conflict with Putin’s interests. Reports suggest that Putin seeks U.S. recognition of Russia’s claim over Zaporizhzhia and other occupied territories, including Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Crimea.
Trump’s ambition to take control of the plant therefore places him at odds with the Russian leader. However, Pasiuk believes that floating the idea of ownership might serve as a litmus test for Putin’s willingness to make concessions.
“I think this is a way to gauge whether Russia might return Zaporizhzhia under a negotiated settlement,” he said. “They’re selecting specific issues to discuss rather than addressing the entire conflict, and nuclear safety is a strategic topic.”
Another potential factor in U.S. involvement could be preventing Ukraine from developing nuclear weapons.
While Sokov believes such a scenario is unlikely given Ukraine’s transparency with the International Atomic Energy Agency, he acknowledges that the risk exists. In early 2025, Zelensky suggested Ukraine might pursue nuclear weapons if denied NATO membership, an option Trump has effectively dismissed.
“If Ukraine ever considered nuclear weapons, outside control of its power plants would make that even less feasible,” Sokov told The Telegraph.
Should the U.S. take over Ukraine’s nuclear management, it would ensure strict oversight of the nuclear fuel cycle, limiting any risk of weaponization.
The Trump administration argues that securing economic stakes in Ukraine could serve as a security measure—albeit one far from Kyiv’s preferred NATO membership and direct military support.
The critical minerals deal, which was nearly derailed by a heated exchange between Trump and Zelensky in March, has since been revived and may be driving Trump’s renewed interest in Zaporizhzhia.
For the minerals deal to progress, energy resources are essential, and the Zaporizhzhia plant could provide the necessary power for mineral extraction operations.
U.S. control over Ukraine’s nuclear facilities would also deepen economic ties, potentially leading to lucrative contracts and long-term strategic gains.
Westinghouse already supplies nuclear fuel to Ukraine, which played a key role in reducing the country’s dependence on Russian energy following Putin’s 2014 invasion of Crimea.
In 2024, Westinghouse announced plans to build new reactors at the Khmelnytskyi power plant in northern Ukraine. Once completed, its capacity would surpass that of Zaporizhzhia.
Comments
Post a Comment