Ukraine facing $10 billion deficit for reconstruction in 2025
Shmyhal's made the comments on after a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Ukraine Donor Platform.
According to Shmyhal, international donors have allocated nearly $7.4 billion for "priority recovery projects" in 2025, leaving a nearly $10 billion deficit to finance reconstruction projects in 2025.
"According to the updated RDNA4 (Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment) assessment, Ukraine's total reconstruction cost is estimated at $524 billion over the next decade," Shmyhal said on Telegram. "With the support of our partners, we continue Ukraine's rapid recovery program, focusing on five key priorities: energy, housing, critical and social infrastructure, humanitarian demining, and private sector support."
Russia's full-scale war, which recently entered its fourth year, has sparked a deep humanitarian crisis in the country, leaving millions displaced and housing and infrastructure devastated in front-line regions.
Western allies and institutions have continue to support Ukraine with international aid since the start of Russia's invasion. Despite this, Ukraine's direct losses continue to increase, reaching $176 billion at the end of December 2024 compared to $152 billion in February last year.
Although gaps in funding persist, Shmyhal said that Kyiv's budgetary needs are being met through support of international donors, having given or pledged $39.3 billion to support Ukraine, according to a RDNA4 assessment by the World Bank.
"We are already working on securing support for 2026. We are grateful to the G7 countries and the European Commission for supporting the ERA initiative and directing funds to Ukraine from the profits of immobilized Russian assets," Shmyhal concluded.
Earlier on April 2, the World Bank announced that it would provide $432 million to Ukraine in funding to assist with the restoration of transport infrastructure damaged during the war.
Read also: Ukraine needs $524 billion for recovery, reconstruction after 3 years of Russia's full-scale war
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
5 minutes ago
- UPI
The Jeffrey Epstein saga: a new national security threat?
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman speaks during a news conference about the arrest of American financier Jeffrey Epstein in New York on July 8, 2019, on sex trafficking charges, File photo by Jason Szenes July 30 (UPI) -- The sordid saga of the long dead and convicted predator Jeffrey Epstein not only poses a threat to Donald Trump's presidency, but it also conceivably threatens the credibility of the U.S. political system. Yet, an even more sinister and potentially dangerous threat lurks for the United States and its friends. The two threats are linked, ironically, by Epstein's ghost. Trump's MAGA base is furious that the promised Epstein files have not been released. What's worse is that that Attorney General Pam Bondi apparently informed Trump his name was in the file -- high-test fuel for that blaze. And, now, possibly to deflect attention, Trump and his director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, have accused former President Barack Obama of treason by interfering in the 2016 election with Russian help. In a nation as politically divided as America, any spark could ignite a political firestorm. Beijing, Moscow and others with malicious intent are intensely watching this saga. One conclusion must be that even greater opportunities exist today to interfere in United States and Western politics, not just exploiting this debacle. More importantly, creating new crises that manipulate and fracture political and social cohesion is a formidable danger. The U.K.'s Brexit is an example of manipulation. In the effort to withdraw from the European Union -- the Leave campaign -- former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his key adviser, Dominic Cummings determined that 1 million or so Britons lacked party affiliation. Then, using social media, this group was targeted with Leave propaganda generated by Cummings. That swung the vote to leave. Cummings was not alone. Substantial evidence exists that Moscow helped influence Brexit and the Leave campaign to weaken the Atlantic Alliance. And Moscow also interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections. Consider the infamous Steele Dossier. Among the allegations, the dossier accused Trump of lewd sexual behavior in Moscow. Suspend reality and imagine Vladimir Putin intervened to help elect Hillary Clinton as president in 2016. Following Cummings' lead, Russian trolls would have filled the Internet with deep-fake photos and invented stories exaggerating or inventing Trump's misconduct. One wonders who might have been elected 45th president. China and Moscow have significant interests in manipulating and fracturing American and Western cohesion. Putin is focused on winning in Ukraine, minimizing sanctions, and in the process, weakening Western solidarity. China is keen on reducing American economic and political influence, as well as annexing Taiwan. It would be negligent to not assume China and Russia are identifying critical weaknesses and potential future fracture points in the United States and elsewhere. In that event where might they focus? National political systems, given the Epstein debacle and national infrastructures, are the two most obvious candidates. Regarding the United States, the Constitution and its system of government based on checks and balances and a division of power among three co-equal branches are the best targets. A super-majority of Americans is highly distrustful and disdainful of government. Exploiting this distrust would not be difficult using the ubiquity of social media and the propensity of Americans to embrace conspiracy theories. Epstein and the Steele Dossier are two examples of how possible future fractures can be invented to sow political, social and economic disruption. The difference is that these effects could be even more destructive. Regarding infrastructure, Israeli and Ukrainian infiltration of two societies with seeming control of their borders and people to launch surprise attacks deep into Iran and Russia underscores how potentially vulnerable military bases and installations are to drones. And even more susceptible to drone attacks are electric generation and power grids, which could cause nationwide disruption. Kinetic attacks on military and civilian infrastructure are fraught with risk. But perceived threats are not. The strategy would be to use a variant of Orson Welles' provocation of massive public and psychological panic in his radio broadcast of War of the Worlds in 1938. Consider future Wellesian scenarios on steroids that threaten catastrophic events or apply fake news reports of spreading epidemics or environmental, financial and other disasters to induce fear and disruption. Concocting new and credible conspiracy theories would be part of this disruptive strategy. None of this is new. The USSR used the Comintern, Cominform and KGB to misinform, disinform, disrupt and provoke. The United States and the U.K. employed similar techniques principally against the Nazis in World War II. However, today is different because social and other media can turn these activities into political weapons of mass disruption. The United States will survive Epstein. Against determined adversaries who intend to create and exploit new political fractures, are the United States and the West ready? That answer is sadly no. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist, senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with Field Marshal The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Best Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.
Los Angeles Times
5 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Russian missiles hit a Ukrainian army training ground, killing at least 3 soldiers
KYIV, Ukraine — Russian missiles hit a Ukrainian army training ground, killing three soldiers and wounding 18 others, authorities said, targeting Ukraine's efforts to make up a severe manpower shortage in the nearly 3½-year war. The Russian Defense Ministry asserted that the strike killed or wounded about 200 Ukrainian troops. The ministry said Ukraine's 169th training center near Honcharivske in the Chernihiv region was hit with two Iskander missiles, one armed with multiple submunitions and another with high explosives. Meanwhile, Russia continued its stepped-up aerial campaign against Ukrainian civilian targets, launching 78 attack drones overnight, including up to eight newly developed jet-powered drones, Ukraine's air force said. At least five people were wounded. The U.N. mission in Ukraine notes a worsening trend in civilian casualties from Russian attacks this year, with 6,754 civilians killed or injured in the first half of 2025 — a 54% increase from the same period in 2024. Since Russia launched an all-out invasion of neighboring Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, at least 13,580 Ukrainian civilians, including 716 children, have been killed, according to the U.N. U.S. President Donald Trump said Tuesday he's giving Russian President Vladimir Putin a shorter deadline — until Aug. 8 — for peace efforts to make progress or Washington will impose punitive sanctions and tariffs. Western leaders have accused Putin of dragging his feet in U.S.-led peace efforts in an attempt to capture more Ukrainian land. Ukrainian forces are mostly hanging on against a grinding summer push by Russia's bigger army, though the Russian Defense Ministry has claimed recent small advances along the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line. Ukrainian ground forces acknowledged the Russian strike on a military training ground in the Chernihiv region of northern Ukraine, but its casualty report differed widely from Moscow's. A Russian Defense Ministry video showed multiple small explosions apparently caused by a missile with a shrapnel warhead, followed by one big blast, apparently from the other one armed with a high-explosive warhead. A similar Russian strike occurred last September, when two ballistic missiles blasted a Ukrainian military academy and nearby hospital, killing more than 50 people and wounding more than 200 others. Ukrainian authorities said a commission led by the head of the Military Law Enforcement Service has been formed to determine whether negligence or misconduct by officials contributed to the casualties in Chernihiv. The attack was the fourth deadly strike in five months on Ukrainian military facilities. The previous three killed at least 46 soldiers and wounded more than 160, according to official reports. Russia also has been trying disrupt Ukrainian military recruitment by hitting regional buildings coordinating the call-up. On Wednesday, Russian forces targeted a regional military administration building in the northern Sumy region, injuring a 75-year-old woman, the administration said. It said they struck the same building with drones last Friday and Saturday. Though Ukraine has more than 1 million people in uniform, including the National Guard and other units, it badly needs more. There have been questions about how Kyiv is managing the war, from a flawed mobilization drive to the overstretching and hollowing-out of front-line units through soldiers going AWOL. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a bill Tuesday that allows Ukrainian men over the age of 60 to voluntarily sign contracts with the armed forces. The law allows those who want to contribute their experience and skills, particularly in noncombat or specialized roles. In February, Ukraine's Defense Ministry began offering new financial and other benefits that it hopes will attract men between the ages of 18 and 24 to military service. Men in that age group are exempt from the country's draft, which covers men between 25 and 60 years old. Ukraine has lowered its conscription age from 27 to 25, but that has failed to replenish ranks or replace battlefield losses. Novikov writes for the Associated Press.
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
70 years later, an alarm against nuclear proliferation rings louder than ever
It feels like we're living in unprecedented times. Political divisions rack the U.S. and the world. The war between Ukraine and Russia has brought unforeseen advances in drone warfare. The foreign policy arena feels like a powder keg dangerously close to open flames. Of course, over the last few weeks, we've all been reminded of the terrifying reality of nuclear weapons following U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran's nuclear program. Questions about these weapons are once again on the minds of policymakers and the public. Though it may feel like new territory, we may look to the past to help us navigate these turbulent times. This month marks the 70th anniversary of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, written in the wake of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, when the U.S. and Soviet Union were racing to create even more destructive weapons. In this context, philosopher Bertrand Russell and physicist Albert Einstein crafted a powerful statement transcending political ideologies, group identities and national borders. Their message was simple yet powerful: 'Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.' They warned of the calamity of nuclear war. After the invention of the atomic bomb, war was no longer about fortifications and sieges. It was no longer a question of winners and losers but of 'will any of us be left?' Humanity faced the threat of extinction. Though memories of the Cold War are quickly fading, we must acknowledge that the world Russell and Einstein warned against persists and is, in some ways, more worrisome now. Nine governments are known to possess nuclear weapons. Nuclear arsenals have unfathomable destructive power. As the recent events in Europe and the Middle East demonstrate, these weapons are still a threat. Given these realities, many suggest the manifesto's vision of international cooperation and nuclear disarmament was naïve. But this misses the point. The manifesto never said the path to disarmament or peace would be easy. Instead, it noted that the renunciation of nuclear weapons and the abolition of war were the keys to human survival. The fact that this vision hasn't been achieved does not invalidate it as an aspiration; it makes it more urgent. What can be done to address this urgency? One step would be for the nuclear powers to credibly announce a no-first-use policy. To date, only China and India have formally committed to refrain from using nuclear weapons in initial strikes against others. The other nuclear powers could adopt a similar policy. The U.S. and Russian governments could reinvigorate the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START Treaty) which seeks to limit nuclear capabilities. The Russian government suspended participation in New START in February 2023 in response to tensions over Ukraine. The treaty is set to expire in February 2026. Though governments got us into this mess, governments alone can't get us out. Politicians have a weak incentive to consider reducing, if not altogether abolishing, nuclear weapons absent sufficient pressure. The same goes for governments seeking to obtain them. The Russell-Einstein Manifesto inspired many to take up the cause of nuclear disarmament. The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs brought together scholars from many disciplines to discuss peaceful solutions to conflict. These types of gatherings are still needed. But the real solution is everyday people. Nuclear weapons may seem beyond our control, but the ideals and opinions of citizens may be the most critical factor in limiting them and war. Ordinary citizens could be the source of pressure that pushes their governments in the right direction. This is not a utopian dream. Historian Lawrence Wittner highlights the crucial, yet often overlooked role that citizen-based organizations have played in limiting the spread and use of nuclear weapons. But for this to work, citizens must take an interest and recognize their power over their governments. At the heart of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto was a straightforward, yet powerful question: 'Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?' As we recognize the 70th anniversary of its publication, we would all do well to reflect on our answer. Abigail R. Hall is an associate professor of economics at the University of Tampa and a senior fellow at the Independent Institute. Christopher J. Coyne is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a senior fellow at the Independent Institute. They are the coauthors of the book ' How to Run Wars: A Confidential Playbook for the National Security Elite.'
