Trump and Ukraine’s Nuclear Plants… Bigger Than an Acquisition Plan

22nd March 2025

4 minutes read

Trump and Ukraine’s Nuclear Plants... Bigger Than an Acquisition Plan

Donald Trump’s proposal for the United States to take control of Ukraine’s nuclear plants has sparked a range of reactions, from astonishment to speculation about hidden motives.

This idea was announced during a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The White House stated that U.S. control of these facilities would provide the “best possible protection” for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, as well as support a sector heavily impacted by the war, according to the New York Times.

However, the ambiguity surrounding the scope of the discussions and the nature of the proposed “control” has raised questions about the practical and legal feasibility of this move, especially since the Ukrainian side emphasizes that nuclear plants “belong to the state and the people” under the Constitution and local laws.

Washington’s Interests

The majority of Ukraine’s nuclear plants, inherited from the Soviet era, play a key role in the country’s energy network during the war, providing up to two-thirds of its electricity.

While Russia has targeted thermal and hydroelectric power plants in Ukraine in an attempt to disrupt its electrical grid, it has avoided attacking nuclear facilities, fearing a radioactive disaster.

In this context, the Ukrainian government has started planning the construction of more nuclear reactors, arguing that it is the only solution to ensure long-term energy security.

This is where American business interests come into play.

Shortly before the war, Westinghouse, an American nuclear technology company, signed an agreement with Energoatom, Ukraine’s state-owned nuclear company, to build five reactors.

After the Russian military intervention, the number of reactors increased to nine, and the two companies agreed to continue their cooperation by deploying smaller plants in Ukraine.

For Westinghouse, this was a significant achievement after years of struggling to enter Ukraine’s nuclear market, which had long been dominated by Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy giant.

Westinghouse has a particular interest in the Zaporijjia nuclear plant, which had six reactors and used Westinghouse fuel and technology before the war.

Olga Koucharna, a Ukrainian nuclear safety expert, believes that Russia’s seizure of the Zaporijjia plant raised concerns for Westinghouse about potential theft of its intellectual property.

In 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy warned Rosatom in a letter that the company could face legal action under U.S. law if it used Westinghouse technology at the plant.

Legal Challenges: A Constitutional Barrier to Privatization

One of the main obstacles to Trump’s proposal is Ukrainian law, which strictly prohibits the privatization of the nuclear sector. All nuclear plants are managed by Energoatom, a state-owned company, which is the largest source of government revenue, having generated about $1.5 billion in profits in 2023.

Any talk of changing this situation presents a major political and popular challenge in a country whose collective memory is still marked by the effects of corruption and the privatization of strategic sectors in the 1990s.

Operationally, the rehabilitation of the Zaporijjia plant, which suffered significant damage during the war, would require investments of billions of dollars and could take up to five years, according to energy experts.

Additionally, the destruction of the nearby Kakhovka dam in 2023 caused a severe shortage of cooling water, increasing the risks of a nuclear accident similar to the Fukushima disaster, especially with the deteriorating condition of the reactors, which, though closed, still require continuous maintenance.

Geopolitical Risks: A Power Play

This proposal cannot be separated from the broader conflict between the U.S. and Russia, where control over Ukraine’s critical infrastructure is seen as part of the proxy war between the two sides.

On the other hand, any direct U.S. intervention in Ukraine’s nuclear sector would be seen as a provocation to Moscow, which could respond with military escalation or by increasing support for pro-Russian groups in border regions, further complicating Ukraine’s efforts to regain control of its territory.

Scenarios and Consequences

Despite Ukrainian skepticism about the immediate feasibility of the proposal, some experts view it as an opportunity to strengthen technical cooperation with Washington, such as transferring advanced nuclear technologies or training local personnel.

The discussions could also pave the way for international financing agreements to facilitate post-war reconstruction, especially as European support for Kiev declines.

However, U.S. pressures to privatize the nuclear sector could lead to internal crises in Ukraine.

Any concessions in strategic sectors are seen as a compromise on national sovereignty, particularly from Trump, who is accused of prioritizing commercial interests over security concerns.