Ukraine’s reconstruction: Advancing from solidarity to shared strategic interests

As Russia’s war against Ukraine continues with no end in sight, reconstruction should no longer be viewed as a postwar question. Instead, it should be perceived as an integral part of the country’s economic resilience, wartime security, and future integration with Europe. Over the past four years, Ukraine has mobilized unprecedented international support. The European Union has approved multi-year financing packages, including a €90 billion facility through 2027, while regular international recovery conferences continue to generate pledges, partnerships, and road maps toward recovery. The challenge is no longer simply mobilizing support or financial commitments, but converting this into measurable outcomes. The next stage in Ukraine’s reconstruction will be defined by the country’s ability to coordinate and deploy existing resources effectively. Despite efforts to create sophisticated financial instruments and platforms, many reconstruction initiatives are still struggling to advance at the point where project proposals become investments. It is time to move forward from solidarity to implementation. At present, many reconstruction projects suffer from a fragmented ecosystem. Donors and institutions often operate parallel project preparation pipelines, each shaped by its own mandates and risk frameworks. The result is a proliferation of feasibility studies and technical documentation without a corresponding increase in projects or progress. Stay updated As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox. Ukraine’s reconstruction is often presented as a shared endeavor. In reality, however, participants including governments, development institutions, investors, and Ukrainian implementing agencies often pursue different objectives and respond to different incentives. The primary objective of government-funded reconstruction is to ensure political and institutional accountability. Public funds must be justifiable to domestic taxpayers, while donor governments and international financial institutions increasingly link disbursements to measurable progress on governance and reform commitments. In an environment of electoral volatility and fiscal constraint, reconstruction assistance should be presented as a means of advancing national interests such as security and stability, rather than as open-ended transfers. Conditionality, layered approvals, and reporting requirements strengthen accountability while reducing risk. Yet these same mechanisms can slow implementation. Without stronger alignment between governance requirements and delivery capacity, accountability itself can become part of the execution bottleneck. Unlike governments, investors do not need to demonstrate solidarity or sustain alliance narratives. Instead, their objective is to allocate capital where risk-adjusted returns, regulatory predictability, and credible exit pathways can be assessed with sufficient confidence. Many companies that were already present in the Ukrainian market prior to the full-scale invasion remain committed and see a competitive advantage in maintaining their presence. At the same time, heightened international interest since 2022 has not yet translated into large-scale new investment. Long-term investment decisions depend not only on security conditions, but on additional factors including regulatory stability, taxation predictability, and macroeconomic clarity. While insurance instruments can mitigate physical risk, they are rarely sufficient to alter strategic investment decisions. Companies invest when they see a credible commercial model. Ukrainian institutions addressing the country’s recovery face a different set of issues as they seek to scale external support under wartime conditions. Ukraine has made progress in strengthening its public investment framework with reforms to centralize project intake, improve prioritization, and increase transparency. At the same time, however, implementation capacity remains uneven across ministries, regions, and municipalities. The challenges are particularly visible at the local level. Decentralization has expanded municipal responsibility for economic development, but many local governments still lack the technical capacity to prepare projects in formats that meet international financing and investment standards. Ukrainian institutions must navigate an increasingly complex governance environment balancing EU conditionality, multilateral lending standards, sovereign-backed financing mechanisms, and private sector due diligence requirements. Strengthening institutional absorption capacity therefore requires investment in skilled personnel, municipal expertise, cross-government coordination, and professional project management. Eurasia Center events If Ukraine’s reconstruction architecture remains fragmented, part of the explanation lies in how the issue is positioned internationally. During the first years of the war, Ukraine was portrayed primarily as a recipient of assistance. This framing mobilized unprecedented political solidarity and financial support, but does not sustain long-term financing. In Western capitals, Ukraine’s reconstruction increasingly competes with domestic fiscal pressures, shifting geopolitical priorities, and other international crises. As a result, support is more likely to endure when reconstruction is packaged as part of broader strategic interests. This shift is already becoming visible. Growing international interest in Ukraine’s defense technology sector illustrates how an emphasis on strategic value rather than humanitarian need can attract international investors, industry partners, and venture capital. It makes sense to apply this more broadly and promote Ukrainian reconstruction as part of Europe’s long-term security architecture. This distinction matters because it changes incentives. While solidarity can mobilize political support, strategic alignment can help secure long-term investment. The future success of Ukraine’s reconstruction will increasingly depend on Kyiv’s ability to promote participation in the country’s recovery not only as a moral imperative, but also as a shared economic and security interest. Olga Usenko is a visiting fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. Further reading The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters. The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values, and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia, and Central Asia in the East. Follow us on social media and support our work Image: POOL UNION EUROPEENNE / AGENCE HANS LUCAS / Hans Lucas via Reuters Connect