Trump suggests Ukraine's largest nuclear plant is on the line in talks with Putin. What's next for Zaporizhzhia?
The UN's nuclear watchdog has repeatedly warned about the security dangers facing the plant – the largest nuclear power station in Europe – which sits on the front line of Russia's invasion.
Now, the Zaporizhzhia plant is expected to be part of negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, Trump administration officials said this week.
The White House press secretary on Monday falsely asserted that the occupied nuclear power plant is 'on the border,' given that its location in the city of Enerhodar, Zaporizhzhia, is almost 200 miles from Ukraine's internationally recognized border. Its position on the Dnipro River is, however, right on the front line on the Russian-controlled side of Zaporizhzhia.
Before Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant supplied roughly 20% of Ukraine's energy, with six reactors.
But the plant is now disconnected from the grid and has suffered some damage amid drone strikes and constant shelling. All six reactors are now in shutdown and there are concerns over the plant's ongoing maintenance, as explosions continue to hit nearby, according to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team on the ground.
Ukrainian officials have previously accused Russia of endangering the nuclear facility and surrounding population, while Moscow has accused Ukraine of instigating attacks on the plant. Ukraine has also previously raised concerns that Russia could try to connect the plant to its own power grid.
Speaking to journalists in Kyiv last Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that the plant 'is a problem for the Russians.'
'Its existence is impossible without Ukraine. We need money and specialists to restore it. And time too, it will take several years,' Zelensky said. 'This is also a problem for us because it is our plant. Lost money, lost opportunities.'
'I am sure that they (Russia) will make political, public statements that the station will soon be operational and will supply electricity to the territories controlled by the Russians. It will not happen quickly,' Zelensky added. 'And the (UN nuclear watchdog) IAEA will be under constant political pressure because the IAEA cannot allow them to do this.'
Trump said on Sunday that negotiators had already pinpointed certain topics up for discussion in his call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, including 'dividing up certain assets' and saying: 'We will be talking about land, we'll be talking about power plants.'
Asked about Trump's comment on power plants, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday: 'There's a power plant that is on the border of Russia and Ukraine that was up for discussion with the Ukrainians, and he will address it in his call with Putin,' specifying that she was talking about the nuclear plant.
'I won't get ahead of those negotiations, but I can say we are on the 10th yard line of peace, and we've never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment, and the president, as you know, is determined to get one done,' Leavitt also said.
Zaporizhzhia is one of the four regions illegally annexed by Russia in 2022. The Kremlin annexed the regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia following so-called referendums in the regions that were dismissed as 'shams' by Ukraine and Western nations. Russia had previously annexed Crimea in 2014.
Putin has continued to make maximalist demands to control all of those regions, even though Ukraine still holds significant amounts of territory in Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
The Kremlin said last month that the four occupied and annexed regions are 'an integral part of Russia' and 'non-negotiable.'
CNN's Victoria Butenko and Anna Chernova contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
GOP senator on DC carjacking fears: ‘I don't buckle up'
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) on Wednesday expressed his fear of being carjacked in the nation's capital, as the Trump administration ramps up its federal takeover of local law enforcement. 'And by the way, I'm not joking when I say this, I drive around in Washington, D.C., in my Jeep, and yes, I do drive myself, and I don't buckle up. And the reason why I don't buckle up, and people can say whatever they want to, they can raise their eyebrows at me again, is because of carjacking,' Mullin said during an appearance on Fox News's 'The Ingraham Angle.' 'I don't want to be stuck in my vehicle when I need to exit in a hurry, because I got a seatbelt around me and that — and I wear my seatbelt all the time,' he told host Brian Kilmeade, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite. 'But in Washington, D.C., I do not, because it is so prevalent of carjacking,' the Oklahoma Republican continued. 'And I don't want the same thing [to] happen to me what's happened to a lot of people that work on the hill.' President Trump announced earlier this week that his administration was taking control of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and deployed hundreds of National Guard soldiers to the area to combat crime and violence in the city. The move, sparked after a former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer was attacked by teenagers during a carjacking — has received heavy blowback from Democrats and local officials. A provision in Washington's ' Home Rule Act ' allows the president to federalize the police force for up to 30 days — but any additional time requires Congressional approval. During a speech Wednesday from the Kennedy Center, Trump said he will seek a 'long-term' extension. 'Well, if it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress,' Trump said, when asked about whether he's talked to lawmakers about extending the takeover. He added that he expects meet with Congress 'very quickly' and snag GOP support. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) signaled in a post online Wednesday that he and fellow Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) were working with the Trump administration on a safety package for the district. 'Together, we will try to shepherd the DC Security Fund through Congress to give President Trump the resources he will need to improve the safety and quality of life in our nation's capital,' he wrote on social platform X. 'Every American should be behind this effort to make Washington, DC clean and safe so that it can truly become the shining city on the hill.' For such a move to advance, however, it would likely need support from some Senate Democrats. Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) made clear that his caucus would not back the measure. 'No f‑‑‑ing way,' he told podcast host Aaron Parnas. 'We'll fight him tooth and nail. … He needs to get Congress to approve it, and not only are we not going to approve it, but there are some Republicans who don't like either.' D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has also pushed back on Trump's moves, calling them an 'authoritarian push' as data shows the crime rate declining in the nation's capital. The mayor has also used the national attention as a platform to reup the district's quest to gain statehood.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump must not give anything away in Alaska
Many commentators have likened President Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to the 1938 Munich meeting between Adolf Hitler, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Eduard Daladier over the fate of Czechoslovakia. There certainly are similarities. The Munich meeting took place without the presence of Czech President Edvard Benes, and the Alaska summit will not include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. And there is widespread fear, especially in Europe, that Trump will yield to Putin's demands for Ukrainian territory — both that which his armed forces have already seized in Crimea and the oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk, and those still held by Ukraine there and in the oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. As the Institute for the Study of War points out, should Putin successfully obtain control of all four oblasts — and especially all of Donetsk, which contains what the Institute terms Ukraine's 'fortress belt' — he would control several potential vectors of attack on the remainder of Ukraine. This would enable Russian forces to seize the country, just as Hitler ultimately took all of Czechoslovakia. Yet there are significant differences as well. Hitler was determined to seize the Sudetenland, and ultimately all of Czechoslovakia, without firing a shot. He had already effectively incorporated Austria that way in the 1936 Anschluss. And he succeeded in doing so. While Putin also wants to be handed over territories that his forces have not yet occupied without having to fight for them — in this regard following Hitler's precedent — he faces a very different set of circumstances. Russian forces have been fighting a determined Ukrainian military since February 2022. Moreover, despite ceaseless and heavy bombardment of Ukrainian formations and military infrastructure, coupled with terror attacks on cities and civilian institutions, Russia has gained remarkably little territory over the past three years of intense combat. Furthermore, just as Putin mistakenly thought that a Spetsnaz (special forces) attack on Kyiv at the start of the war would decapitate the Ukrainian leadership and install a pliant pro-Russian regimen, he also appears to have erroneously thought that Russian-speaking Ukrainians, many of them in the four provinces he seeks to annex, would also take Moscow's side. Yet Russia's attacks have actually united most of Ukraine's population, most notably those selfsame Russian speakers who once held positive attitudes toward Moscow. For its part, Ukraine not only has limited Russian advances in over three years of war, it has inflicted severe damage to Russia's military infrastructure, hit targets deep inside Russia including Moscow and has killed or wounded hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers and North Korean personnel. Still another difference relates to Ukraine's neighbors and partners. Whereas the leading European powers in 1938 hastily acquiesced to Hitler's demands, France, Germany, Britain, the Nordic and Baltic states and the European Union have all made it clear that they stand by Kyiv's determination to preserve its territorial integrity and that Ukraine must have a seat at any table that would determine its future. In addition, NATO has not closed the door on the prospect, however remote, of Ukrainian accession; Putin wants that door shut tight and permanently. That Trump has spoken of concessions in the form of land swaps, while Putin has never indicated anything like an exchange of territory, has deepened European concerns that a deal would legitimate a Russian land grab. It also worries Europeans that Trump is so eager to achieve an agreement, regardless of how its terms affect Ukraine, because he covets the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, whose members are appointed by the Norwegian parliament; since Norwegians generally view Trump unfavorably, it is highly unlikely that the Committee would ever award him the prize. Hitler interpreted Daladier and Chamberlain's willingness to fold at Munich as a signal that he would not encounter British opposition to either his seizure of all of Czechoslovakia or his planned attack on Poland. He viewed both men as 'poor worms,' and Nazi documents released subsequent to World War II reveal that Hitler viewed Chamberlain as so weak that he worried that British prime minister would preemptively give away Poland, thereby robbing Germany of the ability to seize the country by force. Trump needs to demonstrate to Putin when they meet in Alaska that he is no Neville Chamberlain. He must avoid any giveaway to the Russian dictator, which would only whet Putin's clearly insatiable appetite for more conquests, be they remainder of Ukraine, neutral Moldova or one of NATO's Baltic members. As Hitler sought 'lebensraum' — 'living space' for Germans — Putin seeks to restore the Czarist Empire. Whatever the term, the objective was and is the same: territorial expansion. It took a global war to stop Hitler. Hopefully, a strong-willed Trump will obviate the prospect of another devastating conflict. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Secretary's willingness to tamper with past climate reports is dangerous
To the editor: U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright is intending to review and potentially alter the nation's next climate science report ('Energy secretary says Trump administration may alter past National Climate Assessments,' Aug. 7). He's already removed the climate assessments from the government websites. He has accused the previous reviews (even the ones made during the first Trump administration) as being 'politically biased.' Just wondering if Wright has actually looked outdoors recently or at least kept abreast of the weather reports. Has he not seen the spate of unprecedented tornadoes razing towns and communities? Or witnessed the deadly floods throughout the country? Or the wildfires from hell in the West? Or the unbearable heat waves hitting the Northeast? Or the approaching hurricanes that signal widespread death and destruction on the way? It is clear that Wright is on a leash, eager to do the bidding of his master — old 'Drill, Baby, Drill!' His stated intentions, as well as his removal of the climate assessments from years past from governmental websites, make him complicit in the disaster that is to come. Lanore Pearlman, Claremont ... To the editor: I see that Wright, previously the CEO of a company that did fracking, says that the government climate reports have been politically driven and are not accepted by 'a credible economist or scientist.' I am sure he is right that some economists do not wish to contemplate the possibility of climate change, but I would challenge him as to what the majority scientific opinion might be. Hundreds of scientists have studied the issue. Most published articles note that change is occurring. The evidence is everywhere: shrinking glaciers in every part of the globe, shrinking polar and Greenland ice sheets, the melting of the Russian tundra, bleaching coral reefs, longer, hotter summers, disruption of rain patterns, even the opening of the Northwest Passage. The actual debate appears to be whether human activity is causing it. In other words, conservatives do not believe we can stop the process. Erica Hahn, Monrovia ... To the editor: Wright's changes might misinform some, but if our extreme weather-related events continue at their enhanced pace, eventually the public will demand action. Those events are devastating and deadly to the affected population and the economic damage is astounding. I find it disingenuous and devious that the Energy secretary is considering changes to previous scientific-based reports. Going back to scrub past reports won't change the facts that our climate has changed and fossil fuel emissions are exacerbating this change. Jonathan Light, Laguna Niguel
