Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

US$45 billion in security assistance in 2025: a record that outstrips the logic of war and industry

Support has increased by roughly 30% compared with 2024. We break down where the money went and why this is shifting the balance of power — not only on the battlefield, but also in Ukraine's weapons production.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 2, 2026 · 2 min read

US$45 billion in security assistance in 2025: a record that outstrips the logic of war and industry

Record figures: what happened

In 2025 Ukraine received more than $45 billion in international security assistance — the highest amount since the start of the full‑scale invasion. The government reported the aggregate figures, and the growth is estimated at nearly +30% compared to 2024.

Where the funds went

According to official statements, the main funding directions were as follows:

Weapons and ammunition — the key priority to support the frontline's operational capability.
Air defense and missile‑defense systems — investments in air and missile defense that reduce the risk of targeted strikes against critical infrastructure.
Defense‑industrial development — more than $6 billion directed at strengthening the defense‑industrial complex, in particular within the framework of the so‑called “Danish model” of cooperation.
Training, repairs, technical support and logistics — a long‑term foundation for maintaining equipment and training personnel.

The government separately notes that almost $3 billion came from profits on frozen Russian assets in the EU and the UK — these funds were purposefully used for procurement and industry development.

"International support for Ukraine is becoming long‑term and systemic. This is the guarantee of deterring Russian aggression, strengthening our defence capability and ensuring a just peace in Europe."

— Denys Shmyhal, Prime Minister

Why this matters

The figures are not just about money, but about a change in the nature of assistance. Moving from sporadic tranches to systemic investments, partners are effectively agreeing to two things: first, that critical infrastructure and air defenses must be a priority; second, that investment should go into Ukrainian industry, not just one‑off deliveries.

This approach delivers practical benefits: faster equipment recovery, localization of production, reduced dependence on imports, and greater strategic resilience in negotiations with donors.

State support for the defense industry: leasing at 5%

At the end of December the Cabinet approved a state support program for arms manufacturers in leasing agreements — effectively manufacturers will pay about 5% per annum, with the state covering the rest. This removes the financial barrier for large‑scale local production projects and amplifies the multiplier effect of external injections.

What's next — risks and impact

Positive trends do not guarantee automatic victory: key risks include a slowdown in transfers due to political cycles in donor countries, possible legal complications in the distribution of profits from frozen assets, and logistical bottlenecks in the Ukrainian defense industry. However, if international aid remains systemic, Ukraine will gain not only a short‑term ammunition advantage but also a long‑term industrial base for restoring defence capability.

Conclusion

$45 billion in 2025 is not just a record. It's a signal: partners are ready to invest in resilience and institutions, not only in one‑off support. Now Ukraine's task is to convert these funds into lasting results: production, repair, training, and an effective logistics system that will lift the country to a new level of defence capability.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026