OPINION:
The world order is quickly consolidating. China, the United States and Russia increasingly dominate global decision-making, while the European Union, despite its economic size, struggles to maintain influence during stagnant growth, immigration pressures and fragmented policymaking. Far-right movements in Europe are surging.
With Ukraine’s war continuing, stalled negotiations and reconstruction costs, now is the time for the U.S. to pivot away from Cold War frameworks toward return-driven priorities focused on the taxpayer. If we write the checks, we should own the upside.
Fiscally, Ukraine faces one of the largest sovereign debt challenges in decades. It’s also an outlier among post-conflict nations. Public debt was projected to reach 110% of gross domestic product by this year, and reconstruction needs were estimated at $524 billion over the next decade, almost three times the current GDP.
By comparison, postwar Iraq showed a roughly 80% debt reduction after Paris Club negotiations. Afghanistan remained at less than 10% of GDP in the early 2000s, Bosnia reached about 35% by 2017, and Kosovo is near 20% today. Ukraine, in contrast, funds its government through foreign aid while servicing the European Union, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and private creditors. Restructuring would delay the problem and add costly banking fees. Ukraine needs debt forgiveness.
Since independence in 1991 through 2021, U.S. assistance totaled well over $9 billion, including $5 billion through 2013 and three $1 billion loan guarantees after 2014. Since Russia’s invasion, Congress has approved about $175 billion in Ukraine-related funding. Of this, about $120 billion supports Ukraine directly. The remaining funds stayed domestic for defense production, stockpile replenishment, security and refugee assistance.
Despite unprecedented investment, Ukraine’s governance improvements remain limited. In 2024, Transparency International ranked it at 105 out of 180 countries in corruption perceptions, far from the transformation needed to justify $175 billion. Persistent corruption and systemic inefficiencies explain why private capital remains hesitant.
Historically, U.S. policy toward Ukraine has prioritized soft power and values-driven engagement over measurable returns, but with Poland providing a reliable Eastern European partner, we can approach Ukraine differently.
At home, the average American faces rising economic pressures and does not feel incrementally safer or rewarded by this level of support. Our policy toward Ukraine must pivot now, acknowledge this disconnect and prioritize partnerships that directly strengthen our strategic and economic interests.
Ukraine’s fiscal challenges are accelerating. Last week, the prime minister requested new IMF financing, while the war consumes 60% of the national budget. IMF forecasts show a potential $20 billion increase in near-term need. Each extension of the program represents additional taxpayer exposure through our contributions to the fund, to which the U.S. has made the largest commitment ($183 billion).
Endless spending for which the American public never voted is not a strategy. We should instead leverage Ukraine’s undervalued assets, including its tech talent, raw materials and educated workforce, to build value-generating partnerships. Ukraine holds 7% of global titanium reserves and has historically supplied up to 90% of semiconductor-grade neon, critical for artificial intelligence, semiconductors and defense.
Much remains unresolved. Territorial control and industrial ownership are in flux. Significant production and industrial capacity sit in Russian-occupied zones. Ukraine’s information technology and tech sectors, however, remain largely intact in the western and central regions.
The administration’s recent $9 billion Intel equity investment, where the U.S. acquired a near 10% stake, signals openness to innovative financing beyond traditional aid. President Trump’s executive order establishing a sovereign fund could make Ukraine’s reconstruction the first test case to “maximize stewardship of national wealth.” Approaches could include direct equity stakes, the national fund reinvesting taxpayer funds, or coinvestment models with private institutional participation.
The $150 million minerals agreement this week is an early step toward linking reconstruction with long-term investment, but it’s largely symbolic. Kyiv’s half is mostly a commitment of future mineral revenue and not fresh capital. We also take no ownership.
The opportunity is clear: Debt-for-equity swaps could allow the U.S. and private firms to secure stakes in Ukraine’s titanium, semiconductor or manufacturing sectors, helping stabilize its economy while securing U.S. access to critical resources. A temporary, capped tech visa tied to intellectual property retention could fill workforce gaps, keep innovation here at home and upskill the workforce.
This is not abandoning Ukraine, our values or the Ukrainian people. It’s evolving U.S. policy into results-driven partnerships that benefit both nations while respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty. This approach complements diplomacy, security and NATO commitments; it doesn’t replace them.
A sovereign fund framework backed by taxpayer or private capital could unlock reconstruction potential, strengthen U.S. competitiveness and deliver returns to taxpayers.
The U.S. can no longer serve as Ukraine’s democracy underwriter. It’s time for a pivot. If America invests abroad, Americans must see the return.
• Stephen Szypulski is a private capital consultant and former Goldman Sachs and Bank of New York executive.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.