By John Q. Hosedrinker 
From Kyiv, on day 1,391 of the invasion, reports indicate that Ukraine is facing significant financial and military challenges. Ukraine’s Defense Minister stated that the country requires $60 billion from partners to fund defense in 2026. The UK has pledged over $800 million for Ukraine’s air defenses, with deliveries expected to continue through 2026. While Russia denies a submarine strike claim, fighting continues to intensify in the Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad areas, with Ukrainian forces attempting to hold their ground. Additionally, Russia rejected a proposed Christmas truce, and attacks over the past day resulted in casualties.
Read the original article here
Kyiv needs $60 billion from partners to fund defense against Russia in 2026, a figure that, when you really think about it, is a pretty reasonable sum, a genuine bargain compared to other financial priorities. Consider the vast sums invested in areas like artificial intelligence, even for projects that haven’t proven their worth. This $60 billion feels significantly more important, and a lot less than the costs of fighting the Russians directly on the battlefields, which would be far more costly in terms of lives and resources.
The problem, however, seems to be a lack of belief and a reluctance from some Europeans to fully grasp the potential for the conflict to expand. Some might still perceive the battlefields as distant, or perhaps they’re hoping the United States will shoulder the largest burden, even though it’s across an ocean. It’s time for a reality check.
Interestingly, the money seems to be readily available in various places, like frozen Russian funds and European Union assets. If these sources can be tapped, it wouldn’t even require citizens to open their wallets, at least not initially. The consensus, based on the conversations here, seems to be: Let’s do it! Especially when it’s compared to the immense sums that have been embezzled and wasted, this figure is rather small.
On the scale of things, this $60 billion represents a relatively small percentage of the US military budget. It makes sense, therefore, for the EU to contribute a significant portion, reflecting the reality of war and shared responsibility.
The suggestion to create a funding page and spread it across all EU countries is a practical one. There’s a strong sense of a collective capacity to make this happen, a confidence that this can be pulled off.
The magnitude of $60 billion is also placed in proper perspective, being less than the amount that the US has given Argentina as a bailout. Furthermore, when compared to the EU’s total GDP, it’s a drop in the bucket. One might even argue that doubling the investment would be warranted, with a portion allocated to manufacturing Ukrainian wartech within European factories.
It’s tempting to think about past spending habits, such as the billions that have been allocated to groups like the Taliban. This is a point of comparison that underscores the necessity of supporting Ukraine.
There is another perspective to consider, and that is Ukraine’s internal issues. The fact remains that Ukrainian oligarchs, since the 1990s, are believed to have stolen hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars. This stolen wealth could have been used to build factories and train soldiers, offering a different pathway for Ukraine. However, for reasons unknown, Ukrainian politicians prioritize conscripting people off the streets rather than tackling the issue of the oligarchs.
Furthermore, it’s worth noting that if the Ukrainian government issued verdicts against these oligarchs, they could seize assets globally.
Then, there’s the suggestion to raise income taxes by a modest percentage to cover the cost, or to simply seize the frozen Russian assets, or take money from Putin himself.
One thing is for certain: action is needed. There’s a call to arms for citizens of the free world to come together and support Ukraine. If governments fail, the collective will of the people may be the solution, as many are willing to donate to make this happen.
In the realm of priorities, the funding of Ukraine’s defense pales in comparison to some other, less crucial expenditures. The money spent on a single company, OpenAI, is many times the value Ukraine is requesting.
There’s the sentiment that Europe has been more generous than the US in the past, and that the continued support from partners is critical. It’s cheaper to fund Ukraine now than to confront a larger, more formidable Russia later.
From a military perspective, even when considering the operational costs of something as relatively small as an aircraft carrier, the $60 billion quickly starts to appear reasonable. With the high tempo of naval operations and the cost of weapons and air support, the sum can be put into context.
The suggestion is that NATO’s support is crucial, with more countries being called to take action.
The question of who should contribute and how much is crucial. The EU should step up, take responsibility, and fund its own military aspirations. The United States must also play a role, as is standard in a time of war. The potential for a future dominated by a brutal dictatorship looms, making action today of utmost importance.
The sentiment that the Republicans are failing in their leadership role and are at odds with the current administration. A complete collapse of any country’s future is certainly to be avoided.
There are also calls to question the transparency of the current administration. And to make sure that the money, should it be given, goes to where it’s intended.
In essence, the overarching theme is the critical need for funding to support Ukraine’s defense in 2026. The financial commitment, though substantial, is viewed as necessary, a reasonable investment, and a far more cost-effective strategy than allowing the situation to escalate. It’s a call for action, a plea for the international community to unite and ensure Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, and to protect the broader interests of the free world.