logo
Ukraine counts the cost as military aid is cut back

Ukraine counts the cost as military aid is cut back

Telegraph27-05-2025

As the bloody battle against Vladimir Putin's troops stretches into its fourth year, the toll on Ukraine is mounting. Hundreds of billions of pounds have been spent on fighting the Russian invaders, and at least 46,000 soldiers have died.
Hopes that Donald Trump would bring a prompt end to the war have all but vanished. Instead, his constant flip-flopping has made many fear that the leader of the free world has abandoned Ukraine.
For the war-torn country, this means crucial flows of US aid and weaponry could reduce to a trickle or cease completely.
'It is absolutely a risk. Ukraine is nervous about that. The strategy is to draw down as much as they can now, stockpile it for that time. There's not a lot of trust there,' says Timothy Ash, an associate fellow at Chatham House.
'It will make the fight more difficult, but they can still continue. They can sustain the war for at least six months to a year. The war grinds on without some peace process.'
Making aid stretch
For Kyiv, the uncertainty over funding means every dollar must stretch as far as possible.
'If the enemy's unmanned aerial vehicle [like a military drone] costs $50,000 [£37,000], and you hit it with a rocket that costs $1m, that's not cost-effective,' says Oleksandr Barabash, a software developer who has turned into a defence entrepreneur as a result of the war. 'You need to hit it with something cheaper, like we do with radio-controlled drones.
'The prices really make a difference, because all devices are being destroyed on a daily basis. You cannot spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a month on something that will be destroyed in a week or maybe in days.'
The company Barabash co-founded with other volunteers, called Falcons, is just one example of Ukraine's rapidly growing and sprawling defence sector. The industry can now produce many essential types of military equipment for far less than European and American firms.
The push to find ways to make the war less costly – both in terms of human and financial losses – is more acute than ever.
'We have enough commitments till the end of this year, mostly from the EU. But there is significant uncertainty for the next year,' says Yurii Haidai, a senior economist at the Centre for Economic Strategy in Kyiv.
'There are still no commitments that would ensure we can make it through the next year.'
'Paying a fair share'
The threat to financing does not just come from the White House. Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister, has several times tried to block support for Ukraine. He may well try again this summer, says Ash.
Ukraine is well financed for now – thanks in part to the Biden administration rushing through £22.5bn in the final months of last year. But Kyiv cannot rely on a similar windfall arriving after that runs out.
'There is an austerity approach visible,' says Haidai. 'The ministry of finance is very conservative now, focusing on financial resources to be used as wisely as possible to make them stretch as far as possible this year and probably into next year.'
Volodymyr Zelensky's government funds half of the Ukrainian budget from taxpayer revenues, with the remainder coming from foreign grants and loans.
Most of the funding is spent on the war effort. This comes in the form of manufacturing weapons and artillery shells, paying the salaries of 1m soldiers and compensating the families of those killed in battle.
'They are taking measures to collect as much as is feasible from the war-impacted economy,' Haidai says. 'So tax revenues in real terms are growing despite limitations like [the fact] that there are 5m people who fled the war and electricity is limited.'
This means Ukraine's workers and private sector businesses must still keep paying the taxman while living under air raids, daily blackouts and inflation.
'Business and people of Ukraine pay their fair share to support this war effort and the defence. We would very much expect that the West would step in with their share,' Haidai says.
Sprawling defence industry
Boosting the domestic defence industry, which dates back to Soviet times, is crucial to making the money and military aid stretch further.
'After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was left with a big chunk of the Soviet arms industry. But back then maintaining the arms industry was not a priority given that it was just after the Cold War. So there was a decline,' says Lorenzo Scarazzato, of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Putin's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and then the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 have sparked a revival. Ukraine's defence industry now supplies around 30pc of the munitions for the war and has been fuelled by start-ups and entrepreneurs like Barabash.
'After the full scale invasion, I tried to be drafted,' he says. 'But they never called me back, and I had no previous experience with combat. So I started to look how can I help. We connected with other volunteers and started to develop things that soldiers require on battlefield.'
His company specialises in sensors that can transmit from the battlefield despite Putin's forces scrambling GPS signals, making it possible to quickly identity and take out incoming threats.
'We lack everything. So we were asked: can you produce this, because the cheapest one costs more than $100,000 a device? We came up with this first device with a sensor that cost 10 times less than the cheapest solution [on the] Ukrainian market, and 1,000 times less than any device from European on US market,' Barabash says.
Slow international response
Such ingenuity has not been driven only by Russian aggression. Ukraine has also learnt from delays in the international response, says Serhii Kuzan, a former adviser to Ukraine's ministry of defence.
'The several-month delay in the decision to provide American assistance and the EU's delays in the second half of 2022 after the successful counteroffensive by the defence forces in Kharkiv and Kherson regions, and a nine-month delay in aid in late 2023 early 2024, cost Ukraine dearly,' Kuzan says, who is now the chairman of Ukrainian Security and Cooperation Centre.
'These delays not only hampered the Ukrainian Defence Forces' capabilities, but also gave Russia a chance to recover from its defeats and mobilise its own armed forces. Therefore, Ukraine has prioritised the development of the defence industry.'
Even still, there is only so much Ukraine can do. Experts warn there are some types of equipment the country could not replace if going at alone without US backing, such as some fighter jets. Losing equipment like this is a greater worry than running out of money.
Kyiv's best hope may be to convince European leaders that investing in Ukraine is not just throwing money into a never-ending conflict: it is an investment in the future of the Continent's treatment efforts.
'The main obstacle is the lack of funding,' says Kuzan. 'Overcoming fear and making a decision to direct these funds to Ukrainian weapons production will allow Europe to both gain time and receive very specific dividends for itself – cheap and effective weapons for itself in the future.'
It is an attractive proposition. But there is no guarantee leaders will buy in. For now, Kyiv is left to make every cent stretch as far as it can as Russia's assault on Ukraine grinds on.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Is Sir Keir Starmer a Right-wing extremist?
Is Sir Keir Starmer a Right-wing extremist?

Telegraph

time18 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Is Sir Keir Starmer a Right-wing extremist?

Is Sir Keir Starmer KC – Left-wing human rights lawyer, former director of public prosecutions, and Labour Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – a dangerous Right-wing extremist? Common sense, evidence and reality say emphatically not. Government materials issued as part of Prevent training programmes give a less clear answer. The Prime Minister's warning that uncontrolled migration risks turning Britain into an ' island of strangers ' would appear to risk falling foul of the definitions used in a Prevent course taken by thousands of public sector professionals with a duty to make referrals to the scheme. This defines 'cultural nationalism' as a type of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideology, including the belief that 'Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups'. Sir Keir is no more an extremist than any other writer who has expressed concern over the unprecedented scale and pace of migration and cultural change in recent years. Why, then, has the Government risked labelling him as such? The short answer is that, riddled with political anxieties over the composition of terrorism in Britain – 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Police network's live investigations involved Islamism in 2023, compared with 10 per cent for the extreme Right – Prevent has given the appearance of loosening the definition of the latter in order to provide an artificial 'balance' to its work. As the Shawcross Review found in 2023, the programme has adopted a 'double standard' when dealing with Islamists and the extreme Right. The results have been farcical, with an 'expansive' definition of Right-wing extremism capturing 'mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, Right-wing leaning commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation' even while Prevent funded organisations whose leaders have publicly made statements 'sympathetic to the Taliban' and referred to militant Islamists as 'so-called 'terrorists' of the legitimate resistance groups'. Such absurdities might be overlooked if Prevent had also proved ruthlessly effective at preventing atrocities. It has not. Prevent has failed to identify dangerous and violent suspects on multiple occasions, including Southport killer Axel Rudakubana, who was referred and dismissed on three occasions before carrying out his attack. A deradicalisation programme that seems to show less interest in deradicalising potential terrorists than in policing Right-wing thought is unfit for purpose. It beggars belief that two years after the Shawcross Review we are once again having the same conversations. Prevent must be reformed – or if incapable of change, dismantled entirely.

Coca-Cola recalls Topo Chico mineral water over fears of bacteria
Coca-Cola recalls Topo Chico mineral water over fears of bacteria

Metro

time22 minutes ago

  • Metro

Coca-Cola recalls Topo Chico mineral water over fears of bacteria

The Coca-Cola Company is recalling Topo Chico mineral water that was sent to five US states due to possible bacterial contamination. Coca-Cola is voluntarily recalling 'limited quantities' of 16.9-ounce glass bottles of Topo Chico that came in packages of 18 because they may be contaminated with the bacteria pseudomonas. They were sent to stores including wholesale retailer Costco, which distributed the bottles to its locations in Louisiana and Texas. The affected items were purchased from May 20 to 29 of this year, Costco stated in a letter to customers on Monday. 'Pseudomonas can be found naturally in water sources, including mineral water,' states the letter. 'The health consequences of consuming mineral water with the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa is considered to be very low in healthy individuals with potential minor health consequences if consumed by individuals with weak immune systems.' Costco members who bought the mineral water with the lot code 13A2541 should return it for a full refund. 'The safety and quality of the products we offer our consumers is our top priority,' reads the letter. There have been no reports of consumers becoming sick from the mineral water, according to a Coca-Cola spokesperson. 'All impacted product has been removed from store shelves at the approximately 40 retail locations across Arizona, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas,' the spokesperson told FOX Business on Thursday. More Trending In addition to the lot number mentioned by Costco, bottles with 11A2543 and 12A2543 can also be returned for a refund or exchanged, said the spokesperson. Customers with questions should call the Coca-Cola Company. Coca-Cola acquired Topo Chico in 2017 in a reported $220million deal. Coca-Cola also owns the drink brands Sprite, Powerade, Vitamin Water, Dasani, Fairlife and BODYARMOR. The recall comes two-and-a-half months after the company recalled more than 10,000 cans of Coca-Cola over concerns of plastic contamination. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Donald Trump and Elon Musk might make peace – but it will never last MORE: Measles warning issued to UK holidaymakers after cases rise over 120,000 in Europe MORE: List of over 30 Hooters restaurants abruptly closed amid bankruptcy struggle

All the ways Trump and Musk could tear each other apart
All the ways Trump and Musk could tear each other apart

Telegraph

time24 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

All the ways Trump and Musk could tear each other apart

The fallout from Elon Musk's bitter public spat with Donald Trump struck an immediate blow, sending shares in the billionaire's company Tesla tumbling. But the damage risks spreading much further as two of the world's most powerful men squabble over policy, politics and personal behaviour. As US president, Mr Trump has the powers of the federal government at his fingertips – giving him a variety of ways to make Mr Musk's life difficult through investigations, regulatory actions and even scrutiny of his immigration status. Yet at the same time, the world's richest man has leverage too: his billions may hold the key to maintaining Republican control of Congress, with crucial midterm elections coming up next year. Both men have fiercely loyal followings, ready to trash their rival's reputation. And both have a burn-it-down mentality that pushes them to keep going until they have won… or lost it all. Here's how the pair could go to war against each other: Federal investigations Mr Musk is already fighting off multiple probes into his business empire. America's stock market regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission, is investigating whether he violated trading rules when he first began investing in Twitter, now called X. When investors hold 5 per cent or more of a company's stock, they are supposed to declare it publicly. But the SEC accuses Mr Musk of waiting at least 10 days too long, only making a disclosure when he already owned 9.2 per cent of Twitter. He went on to buy the entire business in a $44 billion deal. At the same time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating accidents involving Tesla cars when their full-self driving mode is activated. Shareholders assumed these probes would be dropped by a Musk-friendly administration. Now they might only be the beginning. Another bombshell investigation by the New York Times claimed Mr Musk, who has publicly admitted taking small doses of ketamine, was given advance notice of drug tests at SpaceX. As a government-contractor, the rocket company is required to maintain a zero-tolerance environment. It wouldn't take much to dig deeper. And did Mr Musk overstep a national security line when he famously tried to get a briefing on US plans for war with China? Social media jibes Both Mr Trump and Mr Musk have their own social media platforms, Truth Social and X (formerly known as Twitter) respectively. But as bully pulpits go, X is by far the bigger beast. While Truth Social reportedly has around six million monthly active users, Twitter boasts more than 600 million. Throughout last year's presidential election campaign, Mr Musk used his platform to boost Mr Trump's chances, amplifying his messages and even hosting a live video interview on X. He may now use these same tactics to attack the president. Critics have also previously accused the businessman of changing X's algorithms to suit his whims, as well as repeating unverified claims that later turn out to be false. The Epstein files This week Mr Musk demonstrated how he can also quickly turn X against his former ally with posts attacking Mr Trump, which appeared prominently on the feeds of many users. In one particular jibe, he reached for what he described as 'the really big bomb'. He wrote: Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2025 This was a reference to the unproven conspiracy theory that the Trump administration is dragging its feet in releasing all the details of the investigation into the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019, because of alleged revelations about his links to the president. 'The truth will come out,' Mr Musk added in a follow-up post. His claim has already been viewed by more than 185 million people, according to X. Even if Mr Musk has no evidence to back up his claims, the allegations underscore the power of his platform. SpaceX contracts The US president has already threatened to use his constitutional power to kneecap Mr Musk's SpaceX programme by cancelling his government contract worth billions of dollars. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it,' the president wrote on Truth Social. SpaceX has secured $16 billion worth of contracts from Nasa alone since 2006, including $5 billion for research and development, according to analysis by research firm Eurospace. Still, Mr Musk holds some cards too. At present, Nasa is completely reliant on SpaceX to send both cargo and astronauts into space – and at one stage on Thursday Mr Musk suggested he could 'decommission' the Dragon craft used by the agency. Although potential alternatives to Dragon exist, SpaceX's Falcon 9 reusable rocket is currently the only booster cleared for sending humans into space in the US. 'The alternative, of course, would be to do what they did before Falcon and Dragon were available – which is to use the systems provided by the Russians,' says Pierre Lionnet, managing director of Eurospace. Because of this, Steve Bannon, a former adviser and long-time ally of Mr Trump, has suggested the president should use the Defense Production Act to nationalise SpaceX, citing national security. Mr Bannon is a longstanding opponent of Mr Musk, and took huge delight in the very public breakdown of his relationship with the president. He also called for the immediate nationalisation of SpaceX and Starlink because of their importance to national security. Tesla subsidies Tesla, Mr Musk's electric car company, has made substantial amounts of money from government green energy programmes. This includes more than $11 billion it has made selling clean air 'credits' to rival car makers under a carbon emissions scheme, which have accounted for about one third of the company's profits since 2012, according to analysis by Axios. Under Joe Biden, federal grants worth up to $7,500 were also introduced for drivers who buy electric vehicle purchases. Both of these money-spinning schemes are threatened by Mr Trump's tax and spending bill and the president has suggested this is why Mr Musk has turned on him. Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social: 'I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' Analysts at JPMorgan have suggested Tesla could lose $3.2 billion in profits as a result of Mr Trump's tax and spending bill, which axes the subsidies and targets carbon trading schemes. The 'big, beautiful bill' White House aides at first insisted that the dispute between the two men came down to differences over Mr Trump's flagship piece of legislation, the 'big, beautiful bill', rather than a deeper divide. Mr Musk has claimed the bill will cause the US national debt to balloon, condemning Americans to 'debt slavery'. His public comments have emboldened some Republicans in the House and Senate to also change their minds and voice opposition. The billionaire previously made life difficult for Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, in December when he rallied opposition against a bipartisan spending bill to avert a government shutdown. Now, his attacks on Mr Trump's signature policy could create serious headaches. The president and his Republican allies are grappling with wafer-thin majorities in Congress, meaning a careful balance of promises and threats will be needed to keep enough law makers on board. Insiders have also spelt out the bill's importance. If the first 100 days of his presidency was about shock and awe, pushing through hundreds of executive orders, the second 100 days is supposed to be about working the phones and mobilising support in Congress to pass this legislation. Mr Musk's intervention has put the entire project, and a chunk of Mr Trump's tax-cutting legacy, on the brink of collapse. Deportation Mr Musk's origin story has a wrinkle. The South African arrived in the US to pursue graduate studies at Stanford University during the 1990s. But he ditched classes and instead used his time to launch the first of his companies, Zip2, which he later sold for $300 million. That put him in breach of his visa and meant that he worked illegally, according to documents and legal experts cited by the Washington Post. His enemies have long used those details to call him an illegal alien. As the row accelerates, Steve Bannon, the former Trump adviser, has reportedly advised Mr Trump to launch a formal investigation into Mr Musk's immigration status – and have him 'deported'. 'I am of the strong belief that Musk is an illegal alien and should be deported from the country immediately,' Mr Bannon told the New York Times. It seems unlikely that Mr Musk will end up on a plane to El Salvador with other illegal immigrants – but the threats are a sign of just how much hostility he now faces within Trumpland. The future of the Republican Party Mr Musk and Mr Trump made for odd ideological bedfellows. Mr Musk, from the tech right, is a libertarian, intent on reducing the federal government to dust … all the better to allow his business empire to thrive. Mr Trump wants to use all the agencies at his disposal to promote the interests of the blue-collar voters who back him and to crush his opponents. Their alliance meant Mr Musk could pump more than $200 million into the 2024 election, helping Mr Trump win battleground states and Republicans to win the Senate and House. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' Mr Musk declared on Thursday. 'Such ingratitude,' he added in a follow-up post. Mr Musk had already signalled he might not have more time or money for politics. And, without his largesse, the rupture with the president could spell doom for Republicans in tight districts. Impeachment Mr Trump is no stranger to the impeachment process: in fact he is the only president to be impeached twice, both of the trials occurring in his first term. On both occasions he was saved by a Republican firewall in the Senate, with members of his own party circling the waggons to protect him, paving the way for his political comeback and election win last year. On Thursday, their relationship breaking down while the world watched on in real time, Mr Musk suggested the president should be impeached, convicted and replaced with JD Vance, the vice-president. So far, that looks unlikely: Republicans control both chambers of Congress, and it's unlikely the Tesla billionaire has enough support among senators to reach the two-thirds threshold to boot him out of office. But it's a damaging intervention, nonetheless, because Mr Musk has declared his former ally unfit for office.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store