OddsFrontMeduza reports forecast of expanding Russian control over uranium mining
European supply data show why ownership, mining origin and fuel processing must be assessed separately.
A newly reported assessment of Russian influence over uranium mining has put overseas ownership at the centre of the nuclear-fuel security debate. Meduza reported on September 7 that analysts at Britain's Centre for Strategic Advantage project Russian control could reach 36% of global mining capacity by 2040. Meduza attributed its account to Financial Times reporting; the projection is not an established future outcome.
The distinction behind the assessment is geographical production versus corporate control. According to Meduza, the analysts include overseas mining interests associated with Rosatom's Uranium One, including in Kazakhstan. A mine outside Russia can therefore enter their measure of Russian influence. That approach asks a different question from customs statistics recording where uranium was physically produced.
What European delivery records establish
The Euratom Supply Agency's 2025 annual report provides an independent picture of actual European purchases. Canada supplied 36.68% of natural uranium delivered to EU utilities, Kazakhstan 20.31% and Russia 15.98%. These figures describe deliveries by origin to one regional market. They do not measure worldwide ownership, and cannot independently validate the forecast about control in 2040.
Fuel processing adds another layer. The same report records Russia's share of enrichment services delivered to EU utilities at 22.55%, compared with 72.91% from EU providers. Mining and enrichment percentages should not be combined into a single dependency figure: they concern different stages of producing reactor fuel. A diversified mining portfolio does not automatically establish equally diversified processing arrangements.
Diversification requires several decisions
Euratom's 2024 report had already recommended sourcing uranium across different jurisdictions and geographical regions. It also stressed contracts with multiple suppliers, identifying the vulnerability of utilities dependent on one source. Its account of procurement showed that multi-year arrangements dominated deliveries. This provides a practical policy context: reducing exposure involves contractual choices and supplier diversity as well as the location of deposits.
The implication is that policymakers should test ownership forecasts against disclosed company interests, realistic project schedules and the availability of alternative suppliers. Those are analytical questions, not announcements that new capacity is operating. The developments to watch are confirmed mining investments, changes in ownership and utility procurement decisions. They will show whether the reported scenario is becoming more plausible while keeping current supply evidence separate from a long-term projection.