Vue lecture

Ukraine faces $7 billion defense crisis despite aid surplus

prime minister

Ukraine races against an October deadline to secure emergency military funding while international partners debate whether aid restrictions designed to prevent corruption now undermine the war effort itself.

Ekonomichna Pravda (EP) reports that Ukrainian policymakers have three weeks to secure 300 billion hryvnias ($7 billion) in additional defense funding or face military salary disruptions starting in November. This is despite having $6-7 billion in unused civilian aid sitting in government accounts.

The funding gap exposes how current Western aid frameworks create unintended consequences, forcing Ukrainian officials into urgent negotiations with international partners about relaxing restrictions prohibiting financial assistance for military purposes—a policy debate that could reshape how democracies fund wartime allies, according to EP’s analysis.

Ukraine seeks access to frozen Russian assets

EP highlights that Ukrainian officials are now pressing Western partners to lift restrictions on at least portions of financial aid for military use.

The most promising target is the European Union’s share of the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration for Ukraine or ERA Loans program—a $50 billion G7 credit secured by frozen Russian assets.

While Britain’s portion of approximately $3 billion already allows weapons purchases, Ukraine seeks access to the EU’s roughly $20 billion share for military purposes, EP reports.

Such a change would ease the funding crisis while ending the current system where civilian programs receive surplus funding as military operations face shortfalls.

Time pressure mounts as military salaries are at risk

Without parliamentary approval of budget changes by the end of the month, EP warns that Ukraine will face potential military salary disruptions starting in November.

The Ministry of Finance has already reduced domestic bond placements to preserve borrowing capacity for emergency use, while exploring internal budget reallocations.

However, EP notes that parliamentary rejection of proposals to expand government reallocation powers means any major budget shifts require legislative approval—creating democratic accountability while complicating rapid military funding.

The two-budget paradox strains war financing

Ukraine effectively operates separate defense and civilian budgets due to Western aid restrictions.

While international partners have provided $144.7 billion since Russia’s invasion, these funds cannot support military operations, creating structural imbalances even when aid arrives in surplus amounts.

According to EP, the Ministry of Finance reports that Ukraine attracted $29.5 billion from partners in 2025, while civilian expenditures totaled approximately 900 billion hryvnias ($21 billion).

This leaves $6–7 billion in unused foreign funds, explaining Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko’s government’s continued launch of new programs, including expanded “National Cashback” funding—a program that reimburses households for part of their utility spending and also rewards purchases of Ukrainian-made products—and grants for entrepreneurs.

Meanwhile, EP reports that defense requirements consume nearly all domestic tax revenue, yet still fall short by hundreds of billions of hryvnias.

Multiple pressures drive defense spending surge

EP reports that Ukraine increased defense spending by 400 billion hryvnias ($9.7 billion) in July, but officials immediately understood this would not suffice.

According to EP’s government sources, the current 300 billion hryvnia ($7.3 billion) gap stems from several factors.

Key drivers include accelerated weapons purchases after Donald Trump’s election, when Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council decided to boost ammunition procurement following signals about potential US supply disruptions.

Officials also cite increased one-time death benefits of 15 million hryvnias ($36 480) per fallen soldier, with recent prisoner exchanges returning hundreds of bodies and triggering massive benefit payouts.

Western partners face policy adjustment pressure

The crisis, as outlined by EP, illustrates broader challenges facing Western aid frameworks: balancing oversight requirements with wartime urgency, as Ukrainian officials argue for policy adjustments that better match aid structures to battlefield realities.

According to EP, current restrictions were designed to prevent corruption and ensure humanitarian needs remained funded.

Still, they now create situations where partner nations must navigate complex funding streams while facing urgent military requirements.

The debate reveals broader questions about aid architecture for wartime allies, EP concludes, as democracies must balance accountability with the flexibility that active combat operations demand.

  •  

Brussels to test new scheme to convert frozen Russian billions into Ukraine reconstruction fund

frozen Russian assets

The European Commission is developing a mechanism to transfer nearly €200 billion ($233 bn) in frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction, according to Politico.

Brussels is exploring options to move these assets into higher-risk investments that could generate greater profits for Ukraine while increasing pressure on Moscow.

“We are advancing the work on the Russian frozen assets to contribute to Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on 28 August, marking her strongest public comments on the initiative to date.

The proposal stops short of immediate asset confiscation, which most EU member states oppose due to financial and legal concerns. Instead, EU foreign ministers will debate the plan for the first time Saturday during an informal meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, focusing on “further options for the use of revenues stemming from Russian immobilized sovereign assets,” according to preparatory documents obtained by Politico.

The initiative comes as Ukraine faces an estimated €8 billion ($9.3 bn) budget shortfall in 2026, while European nations struggle with constrained domestic budgets and limited capacity for EU-wide borrowing. The urgency has intensified amid reduced US engagement in Ukraine and President Donald Trump’s unsuccessful peace negotiation attempts.

“We hear that it’s more difficult to raise money [from national finances or the EU budget],” explained Kerli Veski, undersecretary for legal and consular affairs at Estonia’s foreign ministry. “[But] we have those assets there and the logical question is how can we and why don’t we use those assets.”

Baltic states and several Eastern European countries have long advocated for complete asset confiscation. Within the Commission, Latvian Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis and Estonian Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas have championed this approach. However, Western European nations including Germany, Italy, and Belgium continue to resist due to legal and financial exposure concerns. Belgium faces particular vulnerability as it hosts Euroclear, the financial institution holding the majority of Russian assets.

The G7 previously agreed in 2024 to provide €45 billion ($52 bn) in profits from investing the assets to Ukraine while preserving the underlying funds. The EU’s €18 billion ($18 bn) portion of this arrangement will be fully distributed by year-end, creating pressure for additional revenue streams.

Commission lawyers are examining the transfer of assets to a “special purpose vehicle” supported by multiple EU and potentially non-EU countries. Officials compare this proposed fund to the European Stability Mechanism, a eurozone-only bailout fund established outside EU treaties.

The potential Ukraine fund would include G7 nations such as the United Kingdom and Canada, which support asset confiscation, though details remain under negotiation, according to EU officials.

This new structure would grant the EU enhanced control over asset transfer timing to Ukraine. Under current regulations, any single country can return the assets to Moscow by vetoing sanctions renewal, which occurs every six months. Hungary’s pro-Russia stance makes it the most likely candidate for such action.

Moving funds to a new entity with potentially different voting requirements would neutralize Hungary’s veto power.

The asset transfer would also enable investment in higher-yield, riskier financial instruments compared to current practices. Euroclear currently invests the assets through Belgium’s central bank at the lowest available risk-free return rate.

Euroclear CEO Valérie Urbain has expressed concern that EU taxpayers could bear losses from riskier investment strategies. Belgium seeks other EU countries to share liability under the Commission’s proposed framework.

“Belgium is not alone here. We need to support and be taking part in mitigating that risk,” Veski said. “It’s not a question of letting Belgium deal with it [while] we watch from the sideline.”

Recent reports indicate Belgium has become more receptive to the Commission’s plan, with support also emerging from countries geographically distant from Russia, including Spain, according to EU officials and senior diplomats.

  •