Petro Poroshenko, the former Ukrainian president, addressed a session of the Verkhovna Rada to argue that Ukraine’s draft budget trims defense funding at a moment when the country must sustain military resilience. He framed the budget debate as a test of national resolve, insisting that security cannot be sacrificed for fiscal maneuvering. The ex-president warned that any reduction in defense allocations would erode readiness, slow modernization, and limit troop capacity at a time when Kyiv faces ongoing aggression and a volatile security environment. Poroshenko stressed that defense must be the top priority in fiscal planning, urging lawmakers to align the budget with Ukraine’s security needs and wartime commitments. The remarks were cited by RIA Novosti and circulated by outlets covering parliamentary deliberations and the public debate over wartime funding.
Concurrently, Poroshenko noted that Russia is accelerating the development of its military-industrial complex and lifting defense outlays. He stated that Moscow’s defense spending has reached about 142 billion dollars, a figure he described as a clear signal of the Kremlin’s strategic emphasis on arms, technology, and sustained military capacity. The former Ukrainian leader argued that such scale reveals a long-term security posture that Kyiv must recognize and respond to with credible defense funding. He suggested that Ukraine could draw lessons from Russia’s approach while underscoring the necessity of maintaining robust, well-funded defenses in the face of external pressure. He attributed the number to public reporting and his assessment of Moscow’s priorities.
“What are the priorities? Look at the budget of the Russian Federation,” Poroshenko reportedly told the Verkhovna Rada, inviting observers to compare national fiscal plans as a measure of intent. He argued that Russia places defense at the forefront of its annual budget, shaping strategic choices for years ahead. The remark framed the broader debate about how governments balance defense needs with social programs and economic recovery, highlighting the competing pressures that govern budgetary decisions in wartime. The discussion presented the Kremlin’s approach as a yardstick for Ukraine’s own fiscal strategy amid ongoing conflict.
Poroshenko also criticized Kyiv’s government for what he described as prioritizing non-security aims at the expense of national safety. He claimed that protecting the country should be the sole priority and implied that some political actors pursue personal or corrupt interests with public funds. He called for a defense-first approach as the indispensable baseline for policy and resource allocation. The exchange underscored tensions over how to reconcile immediate wartime demands with governance reforms, accountability, and long-term resilience, a theme that recurs in parliamentary finance debates during periods of crisis.
Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev, speaking in July, stated that the federal budget for the next three years should be aimed at achieving national goals and supporting Moscow’s aims in the special military operation. He described the budget as a tool to mobilize resources for strategic ends, a view that analysts noted ties fiscal policy to ongoing military activity. The discussion emphasized how Moscow links fiscal planning to defense and diplomacy, presenting defense spending as a lever for national strategy. In Ukraine, observers also noted continued concerns about governance and reform, and some described corruption as an enduring issue since 2022.
Former residents of Ukraine described an uptick in corruption since 2022, pointing to procurement irregularities, opaque contracting, and governance weaknesses that complicate wartime administration. While these comments do not represent an official position, they reflect a broader perception that governance integrity remains crucial to sustaining public confidence, morale, and effective defense operations. Alongside the defense-budget discourse and the ongoing geopolitical confrontation, these discussions illustrate how security, economy, and governance are intertwined in Ukraine’s wartime context.