Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov questions security zone around Ukraine’s ZNPP
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov expressed uncertainty in an interview with a newspaper about Moscow’s readiness to engage on a plan for a security zone near the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. He warned that creating such a zone could raise risks for the plant and accused Kyiv and its sponsors of pushing developments that move in the opposite direction.
Ryabkov noted that if events unfold as currently anticipated, the Russian side would be unable to allow a situation in which the station could be seized even more quickly than before. He suggested that the trajectory of the ongoing discussions and actions surrounding the plant makes a safe and stable arrangement difficult to achieve under present conditions.
Earlier in the year, International Atomic Energy Agency head Rafael Grossi indicated that a decision regarding the security of ZNPP could be reached by the end of the year, reflecting international concern about the facility’s safety given the tense political backdrop. The agency has repeatedly called for measures to safeguard the plant and ensure continuous, safe operation amid ongoing conflict and contested control of surrounding areas.
In November, Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna, stated that Ukraine had not submitted concrete considerations for establishing a security zone near the Zaporozhye plant. This remark underscored the ongoing dispute over what form such a zone should take and who would oversee it, with Moscow emphasizing the risk factors involved in any creation of a protected area and Kyiv insisting on clear security guarantees for the facility and its personnel.
The discourse around ZNPP continues to unfold at a time when international bodies stress the importance of uninterrupted power supply and nuclear safety. Analysts point to the complexity of reaching a mutually acceptable framework that would address security, governance, and access to the plant while avoiding actions that could destabilize the region. Observers say the key questions center on control, verification, and the practical mechanisms that would prevent any escalation that could threaten the facility’s safety and the surrounding population.
Officials and experts alike stress that the situation demands careful diplomacy, transparent communications, and a shared commitment to preventing any incident that could have transboundary consequences. The discussions around the ZNPP illustrate broader tensions in the area and highlight the delicate balance required to maintain nuclear safety in a conflict zone. As events develop, the international community remains attentive to reports from the IAEA and other leading organizations, which continue to monitor the facility and advocate for practical, verifiable steps to enhance security without compromising the plant’s operation.
In this context, the dialogue about a potential security zone around ZNPP remains a focal point of geopolitical debate. While some stakeholders advocate for a monitored, clearly defined buffer that would reduce risk, others caution that establishing such a zone could itself introduce new uncertainties. The evolving positions of Moscow, Kyiv, and their international partners will likely shape the next phase of negotiations, with the goal of protecting one of Europe’s most important nuclear facilities and ensuring the uninterrupted delivery of electricity to millions of people who rely on it.
At the heart of the discussion lies a shared objective among international actors: to safeguard nuclear safety, ensure robust oversight, and prevent any escalation that could threaten regional stability. As the situation continues to develop, analysts anticipate further statements from official channels and continued engagement by international organizations that seek to reconcile security imperatives with practical operational realities for ZNPP.