Nusrat Mirza
President Trump’s second tenure has taken the whole world by storm. His policies seem to be less diplomatic and more aggressive. President Trump appears willing to do whatever it takes to ‘Make America Great Again” and will not stop at any lengths to implement his vision of American greatness. Much like his previous tenure, he is not bothered by the global criticism of his methodology and is showing the least bit of regard or courtesy to his allies. He has already greatly criticized his European allies on the matter of the Ukraine war, has taken a very aggressive tone with the Ukrainian President, all the while publically humiliating him, is making many changes in the American military leadership, and is heavily cutting back on US Aids (military and civilian) to other countries. On the matter of the Ukraine-Russia war, his stance is simple: he doesn’t want to waste American resources in this conflict and is willing to broker a peace deal between the two countries.
If this option is not acceptable to Ukraine, then Ukraine and the European countries are welcome to take on Russia without American support. President Trump wants to revive the American economy, cut back on costs, and get America out of most of the conflicts it is currently involved in. While some of these objectives seem noble, one should not be fooled by them. All these objectives are a veil under which the Trump administration intends to further American hegemonic designs. This is evident from the American proposal of taking over Ukrainian nuclear power plants. According to the White House, during a phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, President Trump discussed ‘American Ownership’ of Ukrainian nuclear power plants. According to President Zelensky, only the sprawling Zaporizhzhia plant, which is occupied by Russian forces, was discussed, and he made it clear that American ownership is not on the table. Here, it is important to understand what American ownership of Ukrainian power plants would mean for the US, Ukraine, Europe, and Russia.
The potential benefits for the US in controlling Ukrainian nuclear power plants are multifaceted, combining strategic ambitions with significant economic gains. From a strategic standpoint, American oversight of these facilities would bolster security measures, reducing the risks of nuclear accidents stemming from the ongoing conflict. This outcome aligns with US interests in preventing any escalation into a broader atomic disaster. Moreover, such control would severely curtail Russia’s ability to exploit these facilities as bargaining chips in the conflict, effectively undermining Moscow’s leverage. Geopolitically, deeper American involvement in Ukraine’s critical infrastructure would amplify US influence in Eastern Europe, countering Russian dominance and strengthening alliances with Ukraine and other regional partners.
On the economic front, gaining control of Ukraine’s nuclear plants presents substantial opportunities for US corporations specializing in nuclear energy, opening the door to lucrative contracts focused on maintenance, modernization, and the future expansion of these facilities. Furthermore, discussions about tying plant control to broader economic agreements could grant American companies privileged access to Ukraine’s abundant mineral resources a prize of immense economic value. Ultimately, by assuming authority over these vital energy assets, the US would also gain considerable sway over regional energy markets, solidifying its hegemonic posture to safeguard regional stability and prosperity.
The potential for US control of Ukrainian nuclear power plants carries significant and troubling implications, particularly for Ukraine and Europe. For Ukraine, surrendering its nuclear energy assets to American control would represent nothing short of a complete compromise of national sovereignty. While increased American security measures might deter Russian aggression and help avoid catastrophic nuclear incidents, Ukraine would effectively be handing over the keys to its independence, leaving its critical infrastructure and energy security firmly in the grip of the United States. Any economic benefits from American modernization and operational efficiency investments would come at a steep price the risk of permanently losing control over valuable national assets. Politically, Ukraine would be irreversibly bound to Western interests, diminishing its leverage and autonomy in future negotiations, especially concerning Russia. For Europe, the scenario is equally troubling. Though US management of Ukrainian nuclear facilities could reduce immediate nuclear risks and strengthen overall energy stability, the continent would find itself dangerously dependent on America for its energy needs. This dependence would severely limit Europe’s freedom to make independent geopolitical decisions, effectively placing European policy-making under substantial American influence. Instead of moving towards greater energy independence, Europe would be shackled to American priorities, forced to align with policies that primarily serve US strategic and economic ambitions.
Thus, while superficially offering stability and protection, the US proposal ultimately threatens the autonomy of both Ukraine and Europe, further exposing President Trump’s hidden hegemonic agenda beneath his proclaimed goal of making “America Great Again. US control of Ukrainian nuclear power plants would deliver a severe and strategic blow to Russian interests, significantly undermining Moscow’s long-term ambitions in Eastern Europe.
For Russia, losing influence over Ukraine’s nuclear energy sector would be more than just an economic setback it would represent a strategic defeat, stripping Russia of crucial leverage in the ongoing conflict and severely limiting its ability to pressure Kyiv into submission. Moscow would find its regional influence severely diminished, forced to watch as the United States solidifies its foothold on Russia’s doorstep.
Militarily, American control of these nuclear facilities would rob Russia of potential tactical advantages, denying it the opportunity to exploit these plants as strongholds or strategic bargaining chips in the conflict. This move would be an unmistakable symbolic defeat on the information battlefield, fueling Western and Ukrainian narratives of Russian decline and isolation. Despite inevitable Kremlin attempts at counter-propaganda, the stark reality of lost influence would be nearly impossible to obscure.
Economically, potential US agreements granting American access to Ukraine’s mineral resources would further damage Russian prospects, effectively shutting Moscow out of lucrative regional opportunities. Above all, from the Russian viewpoint, the increased American presence in Ukraine constitutes an existential threat, intensifying Russia’s fears about NATO encroachment and severely eroding its power in a region vital to its national security and geopolitical ambitions.
Ultimately, President Trump’s aggressive pursuit of American ownership of Ukrainian nuclear plants may superficially promise stability and economic prosperity. However, beneath these surface-level assurances lies a dangerous game of geopolitical dominance. For Ukraine, it means sacrificing sovereignty; for Europe, a deepening dependency on US whims; and for Russia, an existential threat capable of fueling greater instability. In his relentless drive to “Make America Great Again,” Trump appears willing to gamble with global security, reducing complex international relationships to mere pawns in his hegemonic quest.
The author is the Chief Editor of the monthly Interaction.
