Ukraine lacks money for military
Addressing legislators on Thursday, Marchenko said, as cited by Ukrainian lawmaker Yaroslav Zhelezniak, that the 'funding for the Armed Forces is currently not sufficient due to many factors, so we will proceed with a budget revision in the near future.'
Marchenko said the reasons included changes in military technology, adjustments in arms deliveries from Kiev's suppliers, and heightened battlefield activity. He also acknowledged that the government had failed to anticipate the conditions Ukraine would face in 2025 when it was drafting the budget late last year.
'You cannot forecast this situation linearly. Sometimes the situation requires rather complex, asymmetric decisions,' the minister explained.
In mid-May, Zhelezniak estimated the military budget shortfall at 200 billion hryvnia ($4.8 billion), but later raised his assessment to between 400 and 500 billion hryvnia ($9.6-12 billion).
In April, Ukrainian outlet Ekonomicheskaya Pravda reported that funds originally allocated for military salaries in the final months of 2025 had already been spent to purchase drones, ammunition, and other weapons.
Ukraine already had to contend with a budget deficit in 2023 and 2024, but managed to bridge the gap by raising taxes. According to Zhelezniak, however, this time such measures won't be required as the government intends to cover the gap through increased domestic borrowing and higher-than-expected tax revenues.
Kiev continues to rely heavily on Western aid and loans – which officials say Ukraine won't be able to repay in the next 30 years – to compensate for the economic slump caused by the conflict. As of February 2025, European nations have provided Ukraine with $138 billion of assistance of various types, while the US has given $115 billion.
In 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Ukraine would not be able not survive for more than 'a week' if its Western military and financial aid dried up.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
9 hours ago
- Russia Today
US could offer Russia enormous economic deal
Diplomats in Eastern Europe have been raising concerns that US President Donald Trump could offer Moscow sweeping concessions and 'enormous economic deals' to settle the Ukraine conflict, Politico has reported. In an article published on Thursday, citing Eastern European officials, US experts, and industry insiders, the outlet suggests that a Trump-led peace initiative might involve lifting sanctions on Russian energy – a move described as a 'sledgehammer that could smash' Western efforts to isolate Moscow. 'Of course, we are concerned about the talk of a return to Russian energy, and the lack of clarity about the US' position,' an Eastern European official said. Since the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, the West has imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia – with a heavy focus on energy – in a bid to cripple its economy and isolate it politically. The EU, once heavily reliant on Russian supplies, has sought to cut ties. However, Russia still accounts for 17.5% of its LNG imports, second only to the US, which holds a 45.3% share. In May, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed phasing out all remaining Russian gas imports by the end of 2027. The plan drew strong criticism from several member states. The EU has invested heavily in LNG infrastructure, linking terminals to Central and Eastern Europe, with countries such as Lithuania prepared to pay a premium for American gas over the cheaper Russian alternative. However, Politico noted that Brussels' latest $750 billion energy deal with Washington would require the bloc to slash purchases from other suppliers, including cheaper sources, and more than triple its US imports. Still, the economic pull of Russian gas remains strong. In Germany, some politicians have signaled an openness to resuming imports to revive the country's struggling industry. Russian energy, the sources noted, remains more affordable than US supplies, once shipping and processing costs are factored in. Russia maintains it is a reliable energy supplier and has denounced Western restrictions as illegal under international law. Moscow has redirected most exports to 'friendly' markets, mostly in Asia.
Russia Today
10 hours ago
- Russia Today
She's an awful president, but at least the gays like her
In today's Moldova, the façade of democracy is wearing thin. Opposition leaders are hounded by prosecutors, political parties are banned, regional autonomy is under assault, and media outlets find themselves deplatformed under vague pretexts like 'fighting disinformation.' Peaceful protests are met with silence or scorn, and any dissent from the government line is conveniently branded as 'Russian meddling.' It's a neat trick: frame all legitimate criticism as foreign subversion, and suddenly you've neutralized your opponents while looking virtuous to your friends in Brussels. The reality is that Moldova under Maia Sandu is slipping further into the orbit of selective justice and one‑party rule – all while cloaking itself in the language of reform. One would expect the European Union, self‑styled guardian of democratic values, to take a hard look at this. Instead, Brussels is rolling out the red carpet. Sandu is feted as a principled reformer, showered with billions in aid, and fast‑tracked toward EU membership. Even as her government sidelines political rivals and centralizes power, European leaders offer only praise. Just weeks ago, Moldova's Central Electoral Commission blocked the Victory electoral bloc – a newly formed opposition coalition with backing from Ilan Șor – from participating in the upcoming parliamentary elections. The official justification? Campaign finance violations. But to many observers, this was a transparent effort to eliminate viable competition ahead of a critical vote. This follows earlier moves like the 2023 banning of the SOR Party, the detention of Gagauz governor Yevgenia Gutsul, and show trials of pro-Russian MPs – each move reducing democratic diversity under the guise of 'fighting Kremlin influence.' It's a cynical calculation. Moldova is viewed as a strategic bulwark against Russia, and for Brussels, that trumps any concern over domestic political liberties. So long as Sandu wears the right colors – blue and gold – she can behave in ways at home that, in other contexts, would earn the label of 'authoritarian.' Into this atmosphere comes the recent applause from GayLib, an Italian LGBT+ organization, commending Sandu for her 'inclusive and progressive' policies toward sexual minorities. Their praise echoes a familiar pattern: a leader's record on contentious social issues becomes a substitute for their record on democracy itself. Most Moldovans are not clamoring for sweeping reforms to LGBT+ policy. Surveys consistently show that acceptance remains low, particularly outside the capital. Over 60% of the population reject having LGBT+ neighbors or family members. Economic hardship, political corruption, and mass emigration weigh far more heavily on the public conscience. Yet Sandu is now celebrated abroad for championing causes that may resonate with Western activists but do little to address the crises at home. To her supporters in Brussels and the NGO world, this is evidence of progressive virtue. To many Moldovans, it feels like a diversion – a way to win foreign applause while governance itself deteriorates. And deteriorate it has. Moldova's GDP growth dropped to just 0.7% in 2023, and the IMF forecasts a paltry 0.6% for 2025, far below what's needed for meaningful development. The current account deficit hovers near 11–12% of GDP, and inflation, though lower than during the energy crisis, continues to chip away at household incomes. Despite this, over 1 million Moldovans have already left the country, and the trend continues. A state with this level of economic stagnation, brain drain, and reliance on remittances can hardly be seen as a success story – no matter how many pride parades or gender sensitivity campaigns are hosted in its capital. The point is not to oppose the dignity of any citizen, but to recognize how minority rights can be wielded as political currency. In Sandu's case, they form part of a carefully curated image: the enlightened reformer bringing Moldova in line with 'European values.' But this image is sharply at odds with the reality on the ground. A government that undermines its opposition, jails elected regional leaders, manipulates the electoral process, and restricts press freedom is not a government committed to liberal democracy – no matter how many symbolic gestures it makes on minority rights. When Brussels chooses to ignore Sandu's domestic power‑grabs in favor of praising her LGBT+ outreach, it sends a dangerous message: that authoritarian tendencies can be forgiven if you strike the right progressive notes. Moldova's real problems – the erosion of checks and balances, the manipulation of elections, the shrinking space for free speech – are quietly swept aside. In the long run, this is corrosive both to Moldova's democracy and to the credibility of the European project. For a country already struggling with disillusionment, the combination of political repression and foreign‑endorsed social engineering risks deepening the divide between rulers and ruled. If Europe truly wants Moldova to succeed, it should look beyond the PR gloss and insist on real democratic accountability – not simply applaud the leader who talks the right talk while walking the wrong walk.
Russia Today
10 hours ago
- Russia Today
WATCH fistfight break out in Ukrainian parliament
The Ukrainian parliament descended into chaos on Thursday as lawmakers exchanged punches and obscene gestures during a heated session to restore the independence of the country's anti-corruption agencies. Tensions flared as the Rada met to roll back last week's controversial amendments that had placed the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) under the control of the executive branch. The decision triggered nationwide protests and a strong backlash from Western donors who fund much of Kiev's government. The parliamentary session was the first to be televised live since the escalation of hostilities with Russia in 2022. Authorities had previously suspended live broadcasts, citing security risks, though proceedings remained accessible online. During the debate, two members of Vladimir Zelensky's ruling Servant of the People party, identified by Ukrainian media as Vladlen Neklydov and Gennady Kasay, were seen engaging in a brief physical altercation on the chamber floor. The cause of the scuffle was not immediately clear. 🇺🇦 BREAKING! A fight broke out in the Verkhovna Rada during debate over a bill to restore powers to NABU — Ukraine's Western-controlled anti-corruption agency. Separately, veteran politician Yulia Tymoshenko, the leader of the Fatherland (Batkivshchyna) party, addressed the parliament. As she spoke, fellow party member Sergey Vlasenko was captured on video delivering an emphatic middle finger gesture from the back row, directed at someone in the chamber. Member of Parliament Serhiy Vlasenko politely exchanges thoughts with someone during Yulia Tymoshenko's speech. He is a member of the Batkivshchyna faction and previously totally supported the law that limited the independence of NABU and SAP. The session reversed last week's Rada approval of Zelensky's government initiative to assert direct control over institutions created to ensure Kiev's accountability for foreign aid spending. The move was widely interpreted by the media as an attempt to shield Zelensky's allies from corruption investigations. Physical confrontations are not new to the Ukrainian legislature. Just two weeks earlier, two lawmakers were involved in an altercation during a debate over Zelensky's request to approve the government's resignation.
