The fight for control of Ukraine's nuclear reactors

First, Donald Trump made a pitch for Ukraine's critical minerals; now, the US president seems to want to own the war-torn nation's nuclear power plants.

But there's a lot of confusion over what Trump would do if he did take control of the plants – and if he actually even wants to.

How many nuclear power plants in Ukraine?

Ukraine has four nuclear power plants. The most significant one – and the largest in Europe – is Zaporizhzhia, which was seized by Russia in the first weeks of the war. And it's this plant, in particular, that's become Trump's "new craving" in his "transactional approach to bringing peace", said Politico.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What is Trump demanding?

As a demand, it's Trump "at his most confusing", said The Guardian. If the current frontlines in Ukraine were "frozen" in a ceasefire or peace deal, it would be "difficult to see" how Zaporizhzhia could be operated by the US while it's "surrounded by Russian occupiers". Besides, Ukraine is "not thought willing" to "renounce" ownership.

It's "unclear" whether the US is actually looking to own Ukraine's atomic power, said the Financial Times. A US account of a recent call between Kyiv and Washington suggested so, but Zelenskyy said the discussion only touched on the US helping to "recover" and modernise the Zaporizhzhia plant.

Why would Trump want control?

Trump's minerals deal with Ukraine is "back on" but "can only go ahead if the materials can be extracted", said The Telegraph. This "takes a lot of energy – something which the Zaporizhzhia plant could provide".

Energy analysts have also noted that the US could have another "economic interest" in the plant, said The New York Times. Zaporizhzhia uses fuel and technology supplied by Westinghouse, an American nuclear technology company.

But still, the idea has "a catch" for "the man who coined the art of the deal", said Reuters: "it would be years" before there is "even a hope of it making a return on investment". So, the proposal could simply be the US "testing out various ideas to see what works", as Trump "seeks to hammer out a lasting peace deal".

What might happen next?

Control over the plant is "likely to remain a legal and logistical challenge", said The Associated Press. And, of course, control over the land Zaporizhzhia stands on is a "highly divisive issue for both warring sides".

It's "unclear" what Trump could "offer to Russia to get it to hand over the plant", said the NYT. Moscow is likely to demand something meaningful in return, such as "the lifting of Western sanctions that have hurt its economy".

If Ukraine does regain control of Zaporizhzhia, the "more likely" alternative to US ownership is a "joint venture" – an investment fund for the ageing plant, which "both parties could contribute to and benefit from", said The Telegraph. This is essentially the same concept that "formed the basis" of the minerals deal.