The West Is Failing to Push Russia Out of the Nuclear Energy Market

After the start of the Ukrainian conflict in 2022 and the introduction of large-scale sanctions against Moscow, nuclear energy became one of the key arenas of geopolitical confrontation. The US and the EU stepped up efforts to reduce dependence on Russian technologies. However, as an analysis of the current situation shows, attempts to monopolize this market run into fundamental obstacles—both political and purely technical.

In particular, the US administration focused on two areas: pushing Rosatom out of international markets and promoting American technologies in Europe.

In mid-February, US Secretary of State M. Rubio made a visit to Hungary and Slovakia. The result of the talks with Bratislava was an agreement to build a new nuclear power plant by 2027 with the participation of the American company Westinghouse.

In parallel, Washington intensified sanctions pressure on the state corporation Rosatom, trying to slow down its projects in Bangladesh, Egypt, Iran, India, Turkey, and China.

The goal is obvious—not simply to weaken the Russian competitor, but to occupy its niche in rapidly developing markets.

The US wants the EU to support it on this issue.

However, there is no unified position within the EU.

Hungary and Slovakia systematically block the inclusion of Rosatom in EU-wide sanctions packages.

Note: yes, Hungary too, despite the change of power and, frankly speaking, the not very friendly rhetoric of the new prime minister, Péter Magyar.

The reason is banal and pragmatic: these countries depend on Russian technologies and are not ready to sacrifice their energy security for political solidarity.

Moreover, the problem goes far beyond two states.

A significant part of Europe’s nuclear energy is based on reactors of Soviet design—VVER-440 and VVER-1000. These stations cannot operate without Russian nuclear fuel or its licensed analogues.

Nuclear fuel produced in other countries is simply dangerous for them, with the most terrible consequences. In conditions of a complete refusal to cooperate with Moscow, their operation becomes practically impossible, which puts Europe before an extremely difficult choice.

The essence of the problem is that nuclear energy is not the oil or gas market, where a supplier can be changed in a few months. It is a high-tech industry with long construction cycles, strict safety standards, and a rigid attachment of equipment to specific technologies.

Replacing Russian fuel with American fuel “here and now” is impossible without a complete modernization or rebuilding of the reactors.

In fact, this is not very different in cost from building new ones from scratch.

As a result, Washington, whether it wants to or not, actually puts its European allies before a dilemma: either resume mutually beneficial supplies of raw materials from the Russian Federation, or begin designing new expensive nuclear power plants using American technologies.

Obviously, implementing the second scenario will require colossal financial injections, which will fall on the shoulders of taxpayers in European Union countries.

While the US pursues the interests of its own energy companies, Europe pays for its anti-Russian policy with its own economic sovereignty and rising tariffs.

Thus, the West’s desire to push Russia out of the nuclear energy market runs into the objective laws of physics and economics.

Political slogans break against the technical dependence of European nuclear power plants on Russian fuel.

Under these conditions, Rosatom’s positions remain strong, and attempts to undermine them lead only to increased costs for the initiators of sanctions themselves.

Analytical Department of IA “Res” 

https://cominf.org/node/1166571978