President Trump’s March 19 proposal of US involvement in running Ukraine’s nuclear plants will be decried by some as another effort by the US to plunder the country. But there are some clear benefits to opening up Ukraine’s nuclear industry to private and foreign investment.
It could help Ukraine, secure clean power for Europe, advance Ukraine’s energy transition, and support the West’s nuclear Renaissance. And yes, it could conceivably also deter Russian attacks on nuclear power plants.
The idea, floated in a call with President Zelenskyy, is that the US could be “very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise,” and that, “American ownership of those plants could be the best protection for that infrastructure.”
The logic, mirrored in the US-Ukrainian minerals deal that stalled after Zelenskyy’s February 28 Oval Office visit, is that US ownership, control, or investment in Ukrainian energy and infrastructure assets would protect them from Russian aggression, and perhaps fulfill Trump’s proclamation that “We’re going to get our money back” from Ukraine.
Zelenskyy was quick to say his discussion with Trump about Ukraine’s nuclear sector was limited to the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (NPP), and he would “not discuss” a sale because the infrastructure belongs to the Ukrainian people. Indeed, privatization of critical infrastructure is unconstitutional in Ukraine. Nonetheless, he added with reference to the US: “If they want to take it back from the Russians, if they want to modernize it, invest — this is a different question, this is an open question, we can talk about it.”
Ukraine’s nuclear plants are at risk. Russia has systematically targeted energy infrastructure since the February 24, 2022 full-scale invasion. The Zaporizhzhia NPP, Europe’s largest, took repeated hits before being seized a month later; Russia targeted the plant’s cooling systems, grid connections, containment structures, and spent fuel facilities, risking a Fukushima-style catastrophe. To prevent this, the plant was shut down September 11, 2022 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Ukraine’s Southern NPP has also been hit, but remains online, while the retired plant at Chernobyl was attacked and seriously damaged by a Russian drone in March.
These attacks are part of the ongoing ceasefire talks, in which little has been agreed. Perhaps US investment in or control of Ukrainian nuclear facilities would deter future attacks — “American ownership of those plants would be the best protection for that infrastructure,” say National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Whether Russia honors a ceasefire is very questionable — even after Trump announced on March 18 that Russian President Putin agreed to a 30-day ceasefire on “energy and infrastructure” (the Kremlin said “energy infrastructure” only, and its latest list excludes Ukrainian oil and gas production facilities), Russia continued attacks — and US companies have worked for decades in other sectors that have suffered Russian attacks. Nonetheless, it is worth trying for a ceasefire.
Yet Ukraine’s nuclear sector would benefit from US and other foreign involvement regardless of Russia. Despite suffering from both the war and its own vestigial Soviet-era institutions, technology, and ideologies, it is one of the world’s oldest, largest, and most promising. Consider its advantages:
- A well-established manufacturing industry and supply chain
- a well trained and experienced pool of nuclear labor
- success building reactors far faster than Western countries
- a far lower regulatory burden than any EU country
- vast land and water resources
- no anti-nuclear culture or NIMBYism, and
- the ability to produce nuclear parts, plants, and power cheaper than almost any other country.
Ukraine should become Europe’s uncontested nuclear leader. This would help rebuild the country’s energy sector, buttress its economy, provide power for export to Europe at considerable profit; and the profits could support reconstruction.
Those potential profits are huge, but the risks are too large; a few critical changes are necessary both within and without Ukraine for this to succeed.
Few Western companies will invest in Ukraine if Russia is still bombing. To counter this, the US and other like-minded countries would have to force Russia into a verifiable and sustainable peace. Additionally, a better public-private risk sharing balance must be found in order to incentivize private investment, for example, political risk insurance underwritten by government and international institutions such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s cultural and ideological approach to its nuclear power sector must evolve. The hesitance or even outright hostility to privatization, enshrined in the Ukrainian constitution, is an obstacle to Ukraine’s further integration with the West.
Moreover, private enterprise is usually more efficient and runs at lower costs. Ukrainian law does not at present prohibit private development of nuclear power, but the country’s legacy Soviet state-owned nuclear institution, Energoatom, is fighting to protect its monopoly. Even with a 2023 law requiring Energoatom to corporatize with OECD governance structures and systems, the law does not allow for sale of any part of the company and the implementation any such reforms has been delayed by opposition to the independence of a new supervisory board.
With reforms and incentives to private investment, the future of Ukraine’s nuclear sector could be bright. Bringing US and other Western investment in would also help transition the country from using Russian technology — all of Ukraine’s NPPs are Soviet-era and used Russian nuclear fuel until 2019 — and assist the construction of modern NPPs with advanced technology. Ukraine could become a hotbed of nuclear innovation, showcasing new designs and technologies years before the rest of the Western world. Westinghouse has already announced plans to build the first of a series of reactors at Khmelnitsky in Western Ukraine.
Kyiv’s relationship with the White House remains volatile, and some of its positions will be unacceptable to Ukraine as a sovereign state, and rightly so. But some are worth considering.
As with developing Ukraine’s mineral wealth under a professionally and internationally managed Reconstruction Investment Fund, and provided Ukraine actually benefits from the arrangement, Trump’s suggestion that the US become involved in Ukraine’s nuclear sector is worth exploring. It could help pave the path to peace, and to future prosperity.
Suriya Jayanti is an energy geo-strategist and a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. She served for 10 years as a US diplomat, including as the Energy Chief at the US Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine (2018-2020), and as international energy counsel at the US Department of Commerce (2020-2021). She is currently the Managing Director of Eney, a US-Ukrainian decarbonization company, and the CEO of Denetek, a nuclear development company working in Ukraine.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
War Without End
Russia’s Shadow Warfare
CEPA Forum 2025
Explore CEPA’s flagship event.
