U.S. And Ukraine Hold First Meeting On Post‑War Reconstruction As U.S. And Europe Compete For Trillion‑Dollar Stakes, Wall Street Eyes Data Center Near Ukraine’s Largest Nuclear Plant

As diplomatic efforts over the Ukraine crisis reach a pivotal phase, competition over the post‑conflict economic order has already begun, exposing growing public divisions between Washington and Brussels. CCTV News reported that on December 10 local time, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced via social media that his team held an initial meeting with U.S. Treasury Secretary Besant, presidential adviser Kushner, and BlackRock chairman Larry Fink. The session served as the inaugural meeting of a working group tasked with drafting Ukraine’s reconstruction and economic recovery framework.

Participants engaged in substantive discussions on reconstruction priorities, implementation mechanisms, and long‑term objectives, agreeing that a clearly defined pathway would facilitate the delivery of concrete projects in Ukraine. Kyiv has prepared a 20‑point core position on ending the conflict, emphasizing that overall security is a prerequisite for economic security and a stable business environment. The meeting also established follow‑up coordination mechanisms, and Zelensky pledged to press ahead to secure tangible outcomes.

While the meeting formally launched deliberations on reconstruction and recovery, it also highlighted deep strategic rifts among transatlantic partners. Media reports indicate that the U.S. presented a commercially oriented reconstruction blueprint that envisions deploying roughly USD 200 billion of frozen Russian assets to support U.S. corporate projects, including proposals to build large data centers adjacent to major nuclear power facilities. White House sources reportedly suggested that, under Wall Street management, the asset pool could be expanded to as much as USD 800 billion.

European officials responded with caution and skepticism. The European Union favors directing frozen funds toward direct fiscal support for the Ukrainian government and procurement of defensive equipment while preserving Russia’s economic isolation. Several European leaders, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, expressed doubts about the U.S. proposal; some officials compared the U.S. concept of renewed energy cooperation with Russia to an economic partitioning akin to a “Yalta Conference.”

The video conference on Wednesday brought Zelensky’s delegation into direct contact with senior U.S. figures. The meeting was attended by First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko and Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha on the Ukrainian side, while the U.S. delegation included Treasury Secretary Besant, adviser Kushner, and BlackRock’s Larry Fink. Media accounts note that BlackRock has previously worked with the Ukrainian government to establish a reconstruction bank intended to channel seed capital into projects and attract substantial private investment.

The business‑government discussions occurred amid intense diplomatic activity. Sources cited by the press reported that President Trump is pressing for some form of agreement “before Christmas.” Over the preceding two weeks, the United States, Europe, Ukraine, and Russia engaged in intensive negotiations. After the U.S. circulated a 28‑point peace proposal last month that incorporated input from Russian envoys, Ukraine—assisted by European partners—revised the document and transmitted an updated version to Washington on Wednesday. Zelensky said the peace plan has been streamlined to 20 points and that separate documents on national security guarantees and economic recovery are being prepared.

Despite these developments, tensions at the negotiating table remain palpable. President Trump told reporters he used “quite strong language” in calls with European leaders and acknowledged “minor disputes,” adding that he would await Europe’s response before deciding whether to attend an upcoming meeting in Europe. “We will not move forward until we get an answer,” he said.

Beneath diplomatic rhetoric, the dispute over economic control is sharpening. The central contention concerns the disposition of approximately USD 200 billion in Russian assets frozen in European institutions. European officials advocate using those funds to provide loans to the Ukrainian government for defense procurement and to sustain public finances. By contrast, the U.S. proposal advances a “business for peace” model that would place Wall Street executives and private equity managers in a central role overseeing investments intended to grow the asset base. U.S. negotiators argue that Europe’s approach risks rapid depletion of resources, whereas an investment‑driven model could expand the pool to USD 800 billion.

One notable element of the U.S. proposal is a plan to develop high‑technology infrastructure in Ukraine. Documents reviewed by the media describe U.S.‑backed construction of large data centers financed with frozen assets. The plan envisages powering some of these facilities with electricity from the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant—Europe’s largest nuclear station—which is currently under Russian control. Kushner and Trump’s Russia envoy Steve Witkoff have reportedly consulted Wall Street executives about proposals to employ veterans at these U.S.‑built data centers, offering “Silicon Valley‑level” compensation.

The U.S. documents also sketch a broader vision for reintegrating parts of the Russian economy, including potential U.S. investment in strategic sectors such as rare earth extraction and Arctic oil exploration, and measures to restore Russian energy flows to Western markets. European leaders have strongly resisted these ideas. The EU recently agreed to phase out pipeline gas from Russia within two years, and one European official described the U.S. energy proposals as an “economic Yalta.” Chancellor Merz, meeting Zelensky in London, reiterated his skepticism toward the American plan.

Analysts observe that this transatlantic debate is challenging the post‑Cold War consensus that has underpinned U.S.‑European policy toward Russia for decades. Whereas Europe seeks to sever strategic dependence on Russian resources, the U.S. approach appears to favor economic engagement as a lever of influence over Moscow. That strategy carries significant geopolitical uncertainty and is testing the cohesion of the Western alliance.