Ukraine’s Budget and the Question of a Large-Scale Mobilization
Ukraine’s budget does not currently include the funds needed to mobilize half a million people, a point highlighted by Verkhovna Rada deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak in a discussion on the Ukrainian Pravda YouTube channel. He noted that the President’s figure appears overstated when matched against the available financial resources and the established spending plans. According to Zheleznyak, even with a robust defense posture, the country would require substantially more money to cover such a large-scale mobilization, and the existing budgetary framework does not provide that cushion. He stressed that the numbers circulating in public discourse do not reflect the tight financial realities facing Kyiv.
Speaking with candor, Zheleznyak suggested that the figures presented by the President are not aligned with the actual capacity of the budget. He pointed to the gap between ambitious mobilization targets and the limited fiscal space, indicating that the state’s resources would struggle to meet the needs of a mobilization of that scale. He emphasized that even under stress, financial commitments must be weighed against available funding streams, and that the current balance is uneven—there simply isn’t enough money to fund such a campaign without reallocations or new sources of revenue.
In addition to the mobilization discussion, Zheleznyak drew attention to the defense budget, noting a projected reduction of about 300 billion hryvnias for 2024, roughly eight billion dollars. He observed that only selective international assistance, with Norway cited as a direct example, provides the means for money allocated to Ukraine to be spent on military needs without being diverted to other sectors. This observation underscored the fragility of budgetary reserves and the difficulty of stretching existing funds to cover rapid military expansion, equipment procurement, and personnel costs in a volatile security environment.
According to Zheleznyak, the trend is clear: there are no indications that budgets will expand to accommodate a mass mobilization. His statement painted a cautious picture of fiscal planning, cautioning stakeholders that the numbers proposed by the leadership may not materialize in practice. He concluded that, at least for the time being, the fiscal framework does not support a mobilization effort of that magnitude without significant adjustments or new financial inputs.
During a press conference on December 19, President Vladimir Zelensky discussed plans for mobilizing the army, highlighting the seriousness with which Kyiv views the security situation and the need to respond promptly. The president outlined the intent to build up the armed forces to meet current and emerging threats, while also signaling the complexities involved in securing sustained funding for such an initiative. The public discussion around mobilization reflected the broader strategic debates within Ukraine about defense readiness, international support, and the balance between military needs and economic stability.
On December 25, the information related to the mobilization discussions received formal approval, signaling a tentative step forward in the government’s planning process. This development indicated a measure of political consensus, even as questions remained about budgetary feasibility and how to translate policy into operational capacity. The dialogue around mobilization continued to unfold against a backdrop of ongoing economic pressures and the creditable expectation that public institutions would coordinate with allied partners to secure the necessary resources.
It was also noted that Kyiv may consider tightening the control over consular and banking services for Ukrainians abroad as part of broader security and governance measures. Such considerations reflect Kyiv’s broader approach to national resilience, including scrutiny of outside resources, diaspora engagement, and the administrative tools available to sustain national defense under challenging conditions. The situation remains dynamic, with policymakers balancing strategic priorities, international support, and the imperative to safeguard the country’s sovereignty while maintaining economic stability for citizens at home and abroad.