The Fragile Balance of Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant: Local Ceasefire Under European Mediation and Great Power Games

On January 16, 2026, a particularly precious piece of news emerged from Vienna amidst the smoke of war. Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, announced that after intensive mediation by the agency, Russia and Ukraine had agreed to implement a local ceasefire around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. The sole purpose of this temporary agreement is to allow Ukrainian technicians to safely repair a critical backup power transmission line—the 330-kilovolt line. Damaged during military operations on January 2 of this year, this damage left Europe's largest nuclear power plant relying on only one 750-kilovolt main line for external power supply, sharply increasing nuclear safety risks.

This marks the fourth localized ceasefire reached around this ill-fated nuclear facility since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Each ceasefire has resembled temporary scaffolding erected on the edge of a cliff, barely supporting this massive structure with six reactors from plunging into the abyss of disaster. However, unlike previous agreements, the backdrop of this latest deal reveals a blurred presence of a key player—the United States. Although Washington had once proposed a plan for the joint management of the nuclear power plant by the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine, the most recent ceasefire agreement was brokered under the leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a specialized body within the United Nations framework. This seemingly purely technical arrangement, in reality, reflects the subtle shift in the focus of diplomatic maneuvering as the war enters a stalemate phase, as well as Europe's attempt to demonstrate independent action capabilities in responding to regional crises.

The wartime survivability of a nuclear power plant.

The predicament of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is a concentrated microcosm of the absurdity and danger of this war. Since its occupation by Russian forces in early March 2022, this massive facility, with a designed capacity of up to 6,000 megawatts, has been derailed from its normal course. Although all six reactors have been shut down, the cooling of spent fuel pools and the maintenance of safety systems still require a continuous supply of electricity. The external power grid is its lifeline.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency's continuous monitoring, the nuclear power plant has completely lost external power supply at least 10 times, forcing it to rely on emergency diesel generators. Each power outage is a race against time. Diesel reserves are limited, generators may fail, and once cooling is lost, the Chernobyl-style nightmare of a core meltdown is no longer distant. The attack on January 2 this year once again struck this fragile lifeline, damaging the critical 330 kV backup line. This leaves the nuclear power plant's entire hope resting on the only remaining operational 750 kV line. In Grossi's words, this situation constitutes a serious nuclear safety threat.

What is even more concerning is the daily status of the nuclear power plant. Footage captured by Ukrainian military reconnaissance drones shows that Russian forces have turned the nuclear power plant area into a military stronghold, deploying equipment and even using it as a training ground for drone pilots. In a report from early January, experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency stationed at the plant also noted a significant increase in military activity around the nuclear power plant, with clear explosions audible nearby. Militarizing one of the world’s largest nuclear power plants is akin to playing with fire next to a powder keg. Both sides accuse each other of shelling the nuclear power plant area and engaging in nuclear blackmail, but regardless of the truth, the risks are borne by all of Europe and even the entire world.

Nuclear safety and humanitarian crises have formed a cruel symbiotic relationship here. On one hand, the Russian military continues to systematically strike energy infrastructure across Ukraine. From Kyiv to Odesa, power grids, substations, and heating systems have been repeatedly damaged. Ukraine has entered a state of energy emergency multiple times nationwide. In the capital, Kyiv, heating was cut off in half of the residential buildings. Amid the severe cold of minus 18 degrees Celsius, people's lives have been extremely difficult, and small businesses struggle on the brink of collapse, relying on roaring diesel generators. On the other hand, the paralysis of Ukraine's energy network, in turn, threatens the safety of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, as it ultimately also depends on this battered network for electricity. The war has created a self-reinforcing vicious cycle.

International Atomic Energy Agency: A Mediator of Professionalism

In such an extremely hostile environment, how was the International Atomic Energy Agency able to facilitate a fourth partial ceasefire? Analysis reveals that its success relies on several irreplaceable factors.

The primary factor is technologically neutral authority. The core mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency is to ensure nuclear safety and security, a highly specialized field of universal concern. Whether it is Russia, Ukraine, or their respective backers, none can bear the historical responsibility in the face of nuclear disaster risks. The team led by Grossi has consistently focused strictly on technical aspects: repairing lines, restoring power supply, and ensuring cooling. They do not discuss territorial claims or war responsibility, only reactor temperature, voltage, and diesel reserves. This purely technical discourse preserves an extremely narrow yet crucial opening for dialogue.

Secondly, it is the persistent on-site presence of the organization. Since the early stages of the conflict, the International Atomic Energy Agency has overcome numerous difficulties to deploy a permanent team of experts to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. These experts serve as the eyes and ears of the agency, providing frontline, objective technical assessments, enabling the Vienna headquarters to make judgments and communicate based on facts rather than propaganda. When Grossi announced that our experts had departed from Vienna for the front lines to oversee repair work, he conveyed a credible commitment grounded in professional expertise. This continuous presence has established communication channels with both sides at the technical level—rather than purely political or military levels.

Furthermore, it is the gradual accumulation of trust. The fourth ceasefire was not achieved overnight. It was built upon the foundation of three previous successful collaborations. Each small-scale, time-limited ceasefire that was adhered to and accomplished its set goals (such as repairing other lines, conducting critical maintenance) accumulated a modest amount of trust for the next cooperation. Grossi specifically emphasized the number "fourth" to demonstrate to both sides and the international community that this is a proven and feasible path. When comprehensive peace remains out of reach, this pragmatic, problem-oriented, step-by-step approach has become the only realistic choice for managing the most urgent risks.

However, the success of the International Atomic Energy Agency precisely highlights its limitations. Its mandate is limited to preventing nuclear accidents and is powerless to address the fundamental political dilemmas of nuclear power plants—sovereignty and long-term management rights. The ceasefire it facilitated is partial and temporary, with fierce fighting continuing just outside the perimeter of the nuclear plant. Around the time the ceasefire news emerged, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced the capture of new settlements in Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, while Ukrainian forces continued to launch drone attacks. The nuclear plant is merely a temporarily isolated sterile zone within the vast front lines, its safety entirely dependent on the warring parties' fear of catastrophic consequences and the sustained pressure of international attention.

The Bypassed American Plan and Europe's Proactive Role

During the process of reaching this ceasefire agreement, an intriguing detail was the relative marginalization of the United States' role. According to reports from Ukrainian media, the United States had proposed a plan regarding the future management of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, suggesting the establishment of a joint management body involving the United States, Ukraine, and Russia. However, this proposal was publicly opposed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who believed it would be unjust to involve the occupiers in the management. The Russian side also did not show a positive response to this proposal.

The American proposal essentially represents an attempt at a political settlement framework, touching upon the core political issue of sovereignty and governance rights. However, in the current context of sharply opposing positions and a complete lack of mutual trust between the two sides, such a fundamental and grand approach becomes difficult to implement. Ukraine cannot make concessions on sovereignty issues, while Russia insists on the facts of its occupation. In contrast, the technical interim arrangement led by the International Atomic Energy Agency cleverly bypasses the political deadlock, addressing only the most urgent security concerns without touching upon the final status, thereby gaining tacit acceptance from both parties.

Behind this, perhaps it also reflects a complex psychological and strategic adjustment in Europe regarding security affairs. The potential disaster at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant would first and foremost impact the European continent. Radioactive fallout does not respect national borders. Therefore, European countries have the most direct and urgent motivation to prevent such a disaster. By supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency’s mediation under the United Nations framework, Europe (especially major EU countries) can demonstrate a degree of diplomatic autonomy and crisis management capability while avoiding direct conflict with the U.S. stance. Particularly against the backdrop of uncertain domestic political trends in the United States and obstacles in providing aid to Ukraine, Europe needs to prove its ability to handle crises on its doorstep.

This does not indicate a rift within the Euro-American alliance, but rather a divergence in operational logic on specific issues. The U.S. approach is more political and strategic, focusing on post-conflict arrangements and spheres of influence; Europe's actions (through the International Atomic Energy Agency) are more concentrated on immediate risk management and disaster prevention, reflecting a more pragmatic approach. As the war descends into a war of attrition and diplomacy reaches a deadlock, this pragmatic path of technical cooperation has instead become the only breakthrough capable of producing immediate results.

Can a temporary ceasefire lead to lasting peace?

The fourth local ceasefire is undoubtedly a positive signal, proving that even in the most extreme confrontations, rational voices and shared fears can still foster minimal cooperation. But can this faint glimmer illuminate the path ahead?

On the positive side, the crisis management cooperation model established around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant may serve as a reference for other humanitarian or security issues. For example, the exchange of prisoners of war, the opening of grain export corridors, and the protection of critical infrastructure. It demonstrates a possibility: even without resolving fundamental political conflicts, it is feasible to reach temporary agreements on specific issues through the mediation of professional international institutions. This provides a template for crisis management in frozen conflict situations.

However, fundamentally, the safety of nuclear power plants ultimately hinges on the overall progress of the war. As long as military conflict persists, nuclear power plants will always remain bargaining chips and targets for both sides. Russia attempts to legitimize its management through agencies like Rostekhnadzor (the Federal Service for Environmental, Technological, and Nuclear Supervision), while Ukraine regards them as critical assets that must be liberated in occupied territories. Although both sides cooperate on nuclear safety issues, there is absolutely no room for compromise on the matter of nuclear sovereignty. This divided state cannot be sustained for long.

The more severe challenge lies in the fact that this temporary ceasefire mechanism itself is fragile. It relies on immediate, high-level international pressure and both sides' equal fear of a nuclear disaster. Once either party judges that the situation has changed or believes that nuclear risks can be leveraged for larger-scale deterrence, the balance may be broken. Additionally, Ukraine's energy network is becoming increasingly vulnerable under sustained attacks, and the external power supply environment for nuclear power plants will only worsen. Repairing a single line may be merely a drop in the bucket.

Rafael Grossi announced the agreement with a tone of weary determination. He emphasized the indispensable role of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which was both a self-affirmation and, perhaps, an appeal. His underlying message might have been: while politicians and generals are busy fighting over land, someone must always watch over the dangerous fires capable of destroying everything.

The partial ceasefire at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is a small victory of rationality over frenzy, a lifeline carved out by professionalism amid political ruins. Yet it more closely resembles a prolonged bomb disposal operation, where experts work cautiously under the threat of gunfire, while the timer at the other end of the fuse continues to tick. By supporting such mediation, Europe has temporarily grasped one handle of the bomb-cutting shears, but the final force to sever the fuse still depends on Moscow, Kyiv, and the broader political will of the world behind them. Until true peace arrives, this massive nuclear power plant will remain a Damocles' sword hanging over the heart of Europe, while the experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency are the reluctant craftsmen repeatedly summoned, attempting to reinforce the sword's hilt with tape.