Bitcoin mining becomes a bargaining chip in Russia-Ukraine peace talks! Trump proposes turning Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant into a mining farm

Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is Europe’s largest nuclear facility and has become a focal point in the Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations. Russian President Putin revealed that Trump is interested in mining Bitcoin at the plant. Local media reported that the facility “not only supplies power to residents but also to the mining farms,” and US and Russian officials have reached a preliminary consensus to use nuclear energy for mining. However, Ukrainian President Zelensky stated that occupying the plant is a red line in negotiations, and without Ukraine’s participation, this plan cannot be realized.

Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant: From Strategic Asset to Mining Bargaining Chip

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is located on the Dnipro River in southeastern Ukraine, with six reactors and a total capacity of 6,000 MW, making it the largest nuclear facility in Europe. After the full-scale invasion by Russian forces in 2022, control of the plant was entirely taken over by Russia. During the four-year war, the station was repeatedly targeted for attack. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued multiple risk warnings, concerned that military conflict could lead to a nuclear leak disaster. For safety reasons, the facility has ceased operations, but most of its infrastructure remains intact.

Now, both sides are discussing the possibility of concluding a peace treaty under US mediation, but unexpectedly, the Zaporizhzhia plant has been proposed as a utility project. Putin disclosed that Trump privately stated that the US is interested in jointly managing the occupied Zaporizhzhia plant, including using its electricity for cryptocurrency mining. This proposal would turn a war-torn strategic facility into a potential Bitcoin mining base.

The strategic logic behind this proposal is not without reason. First, the shutdown of Zaporizhzhia means its 6,000 MW of power generation capacity is idle; if some reactors are restarted, the vast amount of electricity could be used for Bitcoin mining. Second, nuclear energy is one of the most stable power sources, capable of continuous 24/7 operation, ideal for the sustained high load demands of mining equipment. Third, Bitcoin mining could provide an economic source for the maintenance and security of the nuclear plant, transforming war ruins into economic assets.

However, geopolitical complexities add many variables to this plan. Zaporizhzhia is located within Russian-controlled territory but remains legally Ukrainian territory. Any commercial activity involving the facility requires consensus among three parties, yet Ukraine, Russia, and the US hold sharply different positions. Putin is willing to strengthen his actual control over the region through economic cooperation, while Trump might see this as an economic incentive to promote peace talks. Zelensky, on the other hand, regards it as a sovereignty red line.

Zelensky’s Red Line and the Three-Party Deadlock

Ukrainian official media quickly dismissed reports that Bitcoin mining at Zaporizhzhia would be supervised jointly by Russia and the US. President Zelensky stated that occupying the plant is a red line in peace negotiations, insisting on joint control by Ukraine and the US (excluding Russia), and said no comprehensive agreement on its future has been reached. This stance implies that without Ukraine’s direct involvement, the Bitcoin mining plan cannot proceed.

Zelensky’s tough stance has political logic. Zaporizhzhia is a vital part of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, providing about 20% of the country’s electricity before the war. Recognizing Russian control over the plant in negotiations would be seen domestically as a major concession or even treason. More importantly, the sovereignty over the nuclear plant has symbolic significance, representing broader disputes over control of eastern territories.

From the perspective of the three-party game, the Bitcoin mining proposal might be an innovative attempt by Trump to break the deadlock. By introducing an economic project beneficial to all three sides, the US hopes to create a common interest basis for negotiations. Russia could gain economic compensation from mining revenues, Ukraine could retain some sovereignty over the facility through participation in management, and the US could demonstrate leadership in the global Bitcoin mining field.

However, this ideal scenario faces multiple obstacles. First, in the ongoing war, any commercial cooperation involving occupied areas could be seen as recognizing the status quo. Second, who will operate the mining equipment? If controlled by Russia, Ukraine would oppose; if operated by US companies, Russia might worry about military intelligence infiltration. Third, how will mining revenues be divided? This involves complex issues of ownership and taxation.

Three Major Obstacles to the Nuclear Plant Mining Proposal

Fundamental Disputes over Sovereignty: Russia has actual control but Ukraine holds legal ownership. Any commercial activity requires consensus among three parties, but current positions are sharply opposed and irreconcilable.

Unassessable Security Risks: Nuclear facilities have been attacked multiple times during the war. IAEA warns that military conflict could lead to nuclear leaks. Initiating mining before safety is fully assured is extremely risky.

Complexities of International Law and Sanctions: US companies participating in business activities in occupied areas may violate international law. EU sanctions against Russia also pose legal barriers to any business cooperation involving Russia.

Global Trends and Controversies in Government-Led Mining

These two global political leaders are influencing the trend of government-supported Bitcoin mining by enacting favorable laws to accelerate progress. Although Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele initiated this, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has imposed several restrictions on this ambitious crypto mining plan, requiring El Salvador to reduce Bitcoin-related expenditures in exchange for loan aid.

US and Russian officials have reached preliminary consensus to use nuclear energy instead of volcanoes (as in El Salvador) for Bitcoin mining. While both renewable energy and nuclear power meet environmental standards, local media reports that Zaporizhzhia “not only can supply power to local residents and related facilities but also to Bitcoin mining farms.” This statement indicates that mining is seen as an economic justification for restarting the nuclear plant.

From the perspective of the Bitcoin mining industry, nuclear power is one of the most ideal energy sources. It provides stable base load power, has very low carbon emissions, and is unaffected by weather, perfectly matching the continuous power demand of mining equipment. If the 6,000 MW capacity of Zaporizhzhia is used for mining, it could theoretically deploy hundreds of thousands of miners, producing hash power that would constitute a significant portion of the global Bitcoin network.

However, government-led mining models also raise concerns about decentralization. The core value of Bitcoin lies in decentralization and censorship resistance. When national-level forces control large-scale hash power, this concentration of power could threaten network security. If Russia and US control the Zaporizhzhia mine and account for over 10% of the total network hash rate, they could potentially influence transaction validation or coordinate 51% attacks.

A more immediate issue is that most of this proposal currently comes from Russian media (such as Kommersant), and the US has not officially confirmed it. This may be a tentative message from Russia testing international reactions; or it could be an informal suggestion made by Trump during private calls, without full policy evaluation. Given Ukraine’s clear opposition, the likelihood of this proposal being implemented in the short term is extremely low.