The U.S. deliberately included the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in the "28-point plan" to use it as leverage.

Focus of the Conflict: Russia and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Rather Than Endless Disputes Over Its Ownership, Just Solve It

The US has specifically included the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in the "28-point plan" in an attempt to use it as leverage against Russia.

Figure caption: Exterior view of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.

"Two chefs cooking one pot — the food is sure to be burnt." This is an Assyrian proverb. Now, a part of the US plan to resolve the Ukraine conflict may face the risk of being "burnt" (especially since, with the help of Kyiv and European countries, other parts of the plan have already begun to show problems). The issue at hand concerns the safety of at least two parties — Russia and Europe — that is, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.

According to the US proposal, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (hereinafter referred to as "Zaporn") must operate under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the electricity generated must be shared between Russia and Ukraine in a 50:50 ratio. It is precisely this provision that has caused dissatisfaction among Kyiv and several European capitals. European countries insist that the nuclear power plant should be managed by Kyiv with US involvement. Such an arrangement is clearly unacceptable to Russia.

First, the power plant is located on Russian territory, and Russian professionals have been working there for a long time. Second, there is no precedent worldwide for a nuclear power plant to be jointly supervised by seven parties. As for the IAEA, it is inherent to its responsibilities to implement a certain degree of oversight over nuclear facilities.

However, when it comes to their own personnel safety, the "vision" of IAEA staff can suddenly become "poor" in many cases.

It should be noted that the Zaporn currently faces numerous issues. First, the power plant is located on the contact line (frontline of the Russia-Ukraine conflict) and is frequently subjected to shelling by Ukrainian armed forces, making it almost impossible to operate normally at present. Second, almost all of the power plant's units have reached their design service life and should, in theory, be shut down and decommissioned or have their service life extended again.

At the same time, the third issue is that four units currently use American nuclear fuel, as Kyiv refused to use domestically produced Russian nuclear fuel years ago. This "foreign fuel" favored by Ukrainians has previously caused multiple accidents. Logically, it should be replaced with domestic Russian fuel.

In addition, the US also focuses on intellectual property rights of the nuclear facility. Russia has already prepared to return the imported nuclear reactor fuel assemblies. We don't need foreign things; our own fuel is sufficient, and using domestic fuel is more reassuring.

Certainly, if a peace agreement is ultimately reached, sharing the electricity generated by Zaporn with Ukraine may not be difficult, but some details remain unresolved.

"The core issue is: Trump proposed to restart the power plant and share the electricity in a 50:50 ratio. Then, will the operating costs also be shared in a 50:50 ratio?" Igor Yushkov, chief expert of the Russian State Fund for Energy Security and expert at the Russian Government's Financial University, raised the question.

"There are multiple reactors inside the power plant, which should not be restarted because they have aged and should be decommissioned. Who will bear the cost of decommissioning?"

Or, conversely, if the service life of the units is to be extended, this would also require a series of specialized works. Will they (Ukrainian side) pay for it?

Another obvious issue is: How should the electricity sales price be determined?

Who owns the power plant — is it Rosatom, the Russian state atomic energy company, or will its assets be divided among various parties?

There are still many unresolved issues. It's easy to say "let's split it 50:50," but what exactly is being split — the electricity or the power plant itself? Where does this 50:50 ratio come from, and what is its basis?

Moreover, in global practice, has there ever been a case of a nuclear power plant being jointly owned in a 50:50 ratio? The IAEA regulations and international law clearly state that the country where the nuclear power plant is located is responsible for any accident that occurs at the plant.

Thus, if an accident were to occur, it would ultimately be Russia that would have to clean up the mess and bear the economic losses.

The journalist of "Svobodnaya Pressa" (SP) asked: "The power plant is located on our territory, operated by our professional staff, and was originally built by Soviet experts. Why should we share its rights with other countries, especially with Kyiv, as proposed by European countries? Doesn't this mean that we also have to give up the relevant territory?"

Yushkov responded: "I believe that Russia's interpretation of this clause will only be: the power plant is ours, and there is no possibility of a 50:50 division. However, after determining how many units can continue to operate and the total capacity, we can sign a long-term contract to sell 50% of the power generation to Ukraine. This plan is feasible. The ownership, operation, and maintenance work have nothing to do with them — the power plant belongs to Rosatom and is responsible for it. I believe this is the only solution Russia can accept."

The journalist of "Svobodnaya Pressa" asked: "Are the current units of the power plant aging, and should they be shut down and decommissioned?"

Yushkov answered: "As far as I know, there is a dispute over the extension of the service life of two units, which should have stopped running in 2024. Although these two units can be restarted to run for a few more years, it makes no sense.

We need to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the power plant to determine how many units can be restarted, whether new units need to be built to replace the old ones, and so on. In addition, we need to assess the power demand and then determine the power sales market. All these works can only be carried out after the military threat is lifted.

I believe that Rosatom does not need to cooperate with other parties on projects or allow other party personnel to enter the nuclear power plant. The Ukrainian National Nuclear Power Company (Energoatom) can participate in some maintenance work, and if it is economically viable, we can also purchase some materials from Ukraine."

The journalist of "Svobodnaya Pressa" asked: "Why include Zaporn in the agreement terms?"

Yushkov explained: "First, Ukraine needs electricity, and its thermal energy system has suffered serious damage. Second, this clause can be interpreted in multiple ways. Ukraine has always used Zaporn as an excuse to try to regain control of the power plant and subsequently take over the large city of Enerhodar.

This is a means of pressuring Russia. If they only needed electricity, they would not have insisted on the management of the power plant and the pricing of electricity. They should have proposed that we commit to selling them electricity, or let the power plant serve entirely the Ukrainian energy system.

In other words, the normal logic should revolve around 'electricity,' but they have made the power plant itself the subject of negotiation. I believe that the political significance of this clause is greater than its energy significance."

Vladimir Brudzher, an expert at the Institute of International Human and Political Issues, believes that the clause involving Zaporn in the agreement should not exist and should be deleted from the agreement.

"Does Ukraine owe Russia commercial debt? Then why should Russia bear commercial obligations towards Ukraine?

Such clauses should absolutely not exist — whether it is about the nuclear power plant, shares of the nuclear power plant, or shipping rights, these are unacceptable.

Does the agreement have a clause requiring Ukraine to allow Russian trains to pass through to Europe?"

The journalist of "Svobodnaya Pressa" replied: "No."

Brudzher continued: "Then why should there be a clause requiring Russia to supply 50% of the power plant's electricity to Ukraine?"

"This plan was entirely designed to benefit the US, cause some losses to Ukraine, and bring great losses to us (Russia). Such clauses should not exist. The agreement should only contain clauses regarding Ukraine's military and political obligations and the way Ukraine will function after the war. Nothing else should be included."

Konstantin Blokhin, chief researcher at the Center for Security Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, pointed out that it is unclear whether Trump's plan is actually being discussed.

"Even Rubio (a US politician) stated that these 28 points are not Trump's plan. There is a lot of doubt about whether we are discussing this plan. The actual negotiation process is not public.

Even if this is indeed Trump's real plan and all parties agree, whether these parties will abide by the plan remains a problem. I seriously doubt that Ukraine and European countries will intentionally sabotage the plan. At that time, the situation of the Minsk Agreement may be repeated (note: referring to the situation where the agreement was reached but not effectively implemented)."

The journalist of "Svobodnaya Pressa" asked: "If this plan is real, why include Zaporn in it?"

Blokhin answered: "The nuclear power plant is not something you can just pick up on the roadside. Its construction and operation require huge funds. Ukraine urgently needs this additional power supply.

Additionally, the nuclear power plant could become a source of future instability, a means of pressure on Russia, like saying, 'We will blow up the nuclear power plant and blame you for it.'"

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7576832794215744010/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.