Following the 19 March conversation between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a controversial proposal has sparked intense debate: “American ownership” of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants as a protective measure.
White House press secretary Caroline Levitt revealed: “President Trump discussed Ukraine’s power supply and nuclear plants. He suggested that American ownership would better protect this infrastructure, leveraging US expertise in energy management.” US Energy Secretary Chris Wright later confirmed on Fox News that taking over management of Ukraine’s nuclear facilities was indeed on the table.
Ukraine operates four nuclear power plants with 15 reactors: Rivne, Khmelnytskyi, South Ukraine, and Zaporizhzhia. The Zaporizhzhia plant—Europe’s largest nuclear facility—has been under Russian control since March 2022. Since its capture, the plant has stopped generating electricity. However, nuclear facilities can’t simply be shut down completely, so Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom now manages the dormant but still potentially dangerous plant.
Later, President Zelenskyy clarified that his conversation with Trump concerned only the Zaporizhzhia NPP—not Ukraine’s entire nuclear fleet. He explained that the US proposal was to “take” Zaporizhzhia from Russian control and invest in it, not to transfer ownership. Zelensky emphasized that all Ukrainian nuclear power plants belong to the Ukrainian people and are not privately owned.
Could Ukrainian law even permit transferring ownership of nuclear plants to the United States? Current Time media asked Oleksiy Orzhel, Ukraine’s former energy minister (2019-2020), who now leads the Kyiv office of the Energy Community Secretariat.
– According to Ukrainian law, this is impossible. However, we understand the situation we are in and remember the previous discussions about natural resources (referring to the not-yet-signed controversial “mineral deal,” which would grant the US access to Ukrainian resources in exchange for US support – editorial). What once seemed impossible has become more feasible.. The United States has been and continues to be a significant source of support, and we need to explore possible solutions. Most likely, there will first be a conceptual decision, followed by developing the necessary legal framework.
Transferring the plants to a concession or to a state-owned enterprise is not possible at this moment. Yet we face an extremely challenging situation, and building a strong dialogue with the United States remains crucial. We need to think carefully and find common ground.
Why do you think these plants are important to the United States?
– These are significant assets, accounting for over 50% of electricity production in Ukraine – even without the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. With Zaporizhzhia, it’s about 14 gigawatts of installed capacity. In fact, this is already close to our current consumption in Ukraine, representing our base generation. This means our own reactors can already fully meet our domestic needs.
We don’t require this many units, and if Zaporizhzhia is returned to Ukrainian control, we’ll need to find external markets for the electricity. We are currently synchronized with the European market, where Energoatom’s electricity is relatively cheap. Why is it cheap? Because the plants were built during the Soviet era, and there are no more investment costs. As a result, it can be highly competitive on the European market. Whoever owns such an asset will, of course, be interested in selling and profiting.
(Energoatom is a Ukrainian state-owned company operating nuclear plants – editorial)
What sums are we talking about here?
These are substantial revenues – potentially billions of dollars, depending on the volumes that can be sold.
And let’s not forget one very important aspect – who supplies the nuclear fuel for our reactors? We pay on time, but who technologically produces our fuel assemblies and who is the supplier? It’s the American company Westinghouse.
Does this mean that the US will influence Ukraine’s energy supply? And for any country, this is, in fact, a significant leverage for pressure.
This is an objective reality. Any country that chooses a particular technology for nuclear reactors becomes very dependent on that country for a long time. First, there’s the supply of the technology itself. Then, the reactors are licensed by the manufacturer for operation. After that, there’s a dependency on spare parts. There are many factors involved. Essentially, you tie yourself to the equipment manufacturer for decades.
It’s no coincidence that Rosatom is trying to establish itself globally by selling its reactors. We see reactors that weren’t delivered to Bulgaria, and now there’s active discussion about Rosatom supplying these reactors to Bangladesh. Rosatom competes for influence just like Westinghouse does. Let’s not forget that American technology is another option being considered for the Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Power Plant, alongside the Russian reactors from Bulgaria. In this aspect, yes, it’s a serious dependency.
(On 11 February, the Ukrainian parliament allowed Energoatom to purchase Russian reactors from Bulgaria for the Khmelnytskyi NPP, which many consider a controversial move – editorial)
Oleksiy, there are discussions in social media that it’s better for Zaporizhzhia NPP to be “under the Americans” than “under the Russians.” Some reply, though, that yes, but there are concerns that the US might be just as imperialistic as Russia, and they would turn Ukraine into the same kind of appendage. Which side are you on in this debate?
– Well, let’s look at it realistically: relations with imperialist Russia are far worse for us. They’re actively killing our people. Meanwhile, the United States is helping us defend ourselves from Russian aggression. That’s the first crucial distinction.
The second point concerns Energoatom’s future. The company urgently needs significant investments, capital for development, and efficient management with strong market access. The Ukrainian market alone can’t absorb all the production from the Zaporizhzhia plant. And let’s be frank: Russia is directly on our border, while the US, as Trump points out, is across the ocean—making it much harder for them to implement colonial policies here.
Yes, we must acknowledge our difficult position when discussing giving up control of our nuclear reactors—a nuclear plant represents an extremely valuable strategic asset. But, unfortunately, we have to choose the best option from the worst ones.
Read more:
- Expert: Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant restoration could take two years after peace deal
- After failed mineral deal, Trump proposes US takeover of Ukrainian nuclear plants
- Russian invaders jail female 56-year-old Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant’s employee for 15 years
