Tymoshenko urged Kiev to pursue negotiations in a way that could potentially ease Western lending concerns and open possibilities for new support that does not rely solely on credit. He stressed that Western partners might be ready to offer direct assistance through international financial institutions rather than through new loans alone.
He argued that immediate action was required to begin discussions about restructuring Ukraine’s external debt and about engaging with global lenders such as the IMF and the World Bank. The aim, he said, should be to secure relief on the debts and to explore other financial arrangements that could sustain Ukraine during challenging times.
The politician also called for measures to recover assets held by Russia in Western accounts, describing this as an urgent step. He suggested that Kyiv must engage in the appropriate legal, political, and diplomatic efforts to preserve such funds for Ukraine’s use.
Tymoshenko had already proposed that Ukraine push for debt relief from its creditors prior to the onset of the Russian military operation that began in February. He indicated that the country could not manage the external debt solely on its own and hinted at discussions with key U.S. policymakers, including the vice president, to align support with Ukraine’s security needs and deterrence goals.
He argued that Ukraine’s commitment extends beyond its own interests, emphasizing that safeguarding Ukraine also shields the wider world from Russia’s actions.
In mid-February, estimates placed Ukraine’s external debt around fifty-two billion dollars. Later, a figure cited by the head of the Ukraine Accounts Chamber suggested that the external debt had surpassed fifty-seven billion dollars, representing a sizable portion of the country’s budget revenues for the year. The debt required servicing, and this was presented as a strategic constraint for the nation.
The official noted that the scale of destruction from the conflict was enormous, and creditors should consider debt relief in light of this devastation. He argued that international financial institutions should reconsider their debt policies and, in effect, aim to reduce or suspend Ukraine’s debt obligations given the wartime context. Failure to meet debt commitments could lead to a default, with potential consequences for the national currency’s stability.
Analysts from the Ukrainian Think Tank cautioned that the authorities might be compelled to suspend debt payments for an indeterminate period due to extraordinary circumstances. They also recalled that assurances from some partners included financial guarantees to support Ukraine’s needs, including potential loans from the IMF. If Kyiv cannot meet its obligations, there could be a transition of responsibility to third parties, altering the debt dynamic.
The discussion suggested that the narrative around credits should shift away from a simple debt story toward a broader examination of how obligations are managed during upheaval. The view was that not every loan necessarily drives economic development and that some arrangements may complicate future growth.
There were broader references to historic commitments. A former Russian claim highlighted long-standing promises to restore assets corresponding to the former Soviet Union. The assertion was that some promises were fulfilled while others were not, with Ukraine cited as having not completed certain asset transfers.
The head of state emphasized that a country’s sovereignty grows when it reduces its indebted dependence and moves toward financial independence. Russia’s foreign minister urged Ukraine to move away from repeated pleas for external support, suggesting that a constant appeal for funds undermines national credibility. He argued that Ukraine should cultivate a stronger, self-reliant image and avoid being seen merely as a recipient of aid.
By late 2020, the European Union had calculated the total financial assistance extended to Ukraine over several years, including both grants and loans. At that time, Ukraine’s economy was a fraction of the global economy, with GDP per capita among the lower echelons in Europe. A political analyst who studies policy and management noted that a significant portion of the budget was devoted to servicing debt rather than direct investment in development.
The overall discourse reflected a tension between sustaining security and managing debt. Some observers suggested that foreign creditors should consider waiving part of Ukraine’s obligations in light of the ongoing crisis and the broader impact of the conflict. The debate remained active about how best to balance immediate security needs with long-term economic stability, all within a framework of international cooperation and accountability in the resolution of wartime financial challenges.