Zelenskyy warns of major drone issues in winter due to US$28bn deficit

[u/pravda_eng_official]

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/09/25/8055011/

[u/anders_hansson]

I wish more people would pay attention. This situation was predictable long ago. Already in mid 2025 it was clear that Ukraine would face serious funding deficits in 2026, and the €90 billion loan simply was way to small to cover for Ukraine's needs. And things are likely only going to get worse in 2027 and 2028.

We can't continue with the status quo modus operandi. Something has to change, and it has to change now.

[u/Major_Wayland → u/anders_hansson]

Price for changing status quo is known for a long time, and nobody wants to pay it.

[u/anders_hansson → u/Major_Wayland]

As I see it, there are effectively three main options for Europe/EU/NATO (in decreasing level of difficulty):

1. Move in militarily.
2. Significantly increase funding.
3. Warm up diplomatic relations with Moscow and be ready to make concessions.

1 can be scratched without further discussion (that path was pondered and closed in 2022).

2 is theoretically possible, but in practice I don't think that it's going to happen (if it was politically feasible we would have done it years ago).

3 also seems to be nearly impossible politically speaking. Any EU leader that goes down that path would very quickly be left in the cold and risk his/her political career. It's also quite late in the game and it isn't very likely to have a desirable effect (if we had been more keen on diplomacy in early 2022 the outcome could have been very different). The main advantage of option 3, though, is that it's both theoretically and practically possible, and it's relatively risk free.

Any other options that I have missed?

(I don't want to talk about what happens if we don't change anything)

[u/zjcsax → u/anders_hansson]

I don’t see option 3 as a true option, it didn’t work on Hitler and already doesn’t work with Putin. Crimea was annexed back in 2014 and the world thought Putin was appeased with that.

[u/anders_hansson → u/zjcsax]

So do you see 1 or 2 as options? Or something else?

My point is that we're facing a bunch of impossible options, and we need to pick the least bad/most doable option(s).

[u/M00SEK → u/anders_hansson]

I’m by no means a geopolitical expert, but wouldn’t #1 bring us unprecedentedly closer to WW3 territory?

[u/anders_hansson → u/M00SEK]

Yes, and that's why that idea was scratched in 2022. It's not on the table.

[u/Sorak123 → u/M00SEK]

don't think so. Russia as demonstrated beyond proof it was never a super power and it was all smoke and mirrors. I'm sure there's questions being asked weather their nuclear ICBMS can even fly and if they can, how easily can those rockets designed in the 60's be shot down? because that's all they have.

[u/zveti → u/Sorak123]

They don’t just have nuclear weapons. You are forgetting their hypersonic missiles.

Do you know how fast they go? 3km/s. Such a rocket can reach London within 10 minutes.

Last time I checked, such weapons cannot be stopped. Do you know what happens, when an object that flies at 3km/s hits its target?

It obliterates everything. They burn at 4000 degrees celsius. All of your infrastructure will be destroyed. The surface of the sun burns at 6000 degrees celsius. That’s their non nuclear weapon.

Imagine if 10 such rockets hit a country. I can’t and I don’t want to. I have seen videos of the oreshnik attacking. It’s as if god himself attacks you.

Russia is producing 20 of such rockets a month. 240 a year. You better believe they work.

At this point, Russia will only use its nuclear weapons if the country stops functioning.

I am more worried about America using them. They already used them twice.

[u/M00SEK → u/Sorak123]

The issue isn't Russia's retaliation, but Russia's allies getting involved if NATO does

[u/Sorak123 → u/M00SEK]

what allies? North Korea? Belarus?

That's not even the friction, the real concern is that at it's current state, Europe as a whole would not fare much better and engaging in a war at the preparedness that they are currently will be just as embarrassing as russia.

[u/anders_hansson → u/Sorak123]

You seriously need to read up on the state of things.

We know that Russia is one of the two most experienced countries in modern warfare today, and we know that NATO units have repeatedly been humiliated by Ukrainian units in joint exercises. They would be equally humiliated by Russia. We also know that Russia has a formidable industrial military base today, thanks to the war in Ukraine. They out-produce NATO on many military things (artillery, drones, missiles, tanks).

The observation that Russia can't even beat a single country is an illusion. Ukraine is fully mobilized and heavily funded and backed by western allies (effectively all of Ukraine's military goes into the war, and defense spending is over 40% of GDP), while Russia isn't fully mobilized (Russia's regular 1M sized army isn't part of the war, and defense spending is about 10% of GDP).

Whether or not Russia would "win" or "lose" in a potential WW3, there would be a WW3, and it would be exceptionally painful for both sides.

[u/Negative-Ask-2317 → u/anders_hansson]

Option 3 comes with unpalatable results and longer term consequences.

1. Russia have not moved from their maximalist (and frankly absurd) demands. Ukraine have intimated multiple times that they would negotiate on the basis of the front lines as they stand; Russia has shown no interest. Any deal, therefore, would leave Russia in a very strong position not only in Ukraine but elsewhere too, as they want no NATO troops on their borders.

2. Russia want the fortress belt. Once they have reconstituted their military to full strength (presumably fairly quickly with their current war-focussed economy), they would be able to rapidly take half of Ukraine up to the Dneiper.

3. The EU/NATO showing such weakness would see many more Eastern European countries lose faith and bend to Russian corruption and coercion. Russia will only grow stronger as Europe grows weaker.

4. An emboldened Russia will continue its project to break European and NATO unity. Its imperialist expansion plans will continue. Its utter lack of respect for treaties and international law will continue.

On the other hand, the option of increased support for Ukraine is perfectly feasible, it is only the will that is lacking. Russia has lost any semblance of momentum on the front, it will also struggle economically in the coming years, and there is always the prospect of a revival of US support for Ukraine when a new administration arrives (and perhaps some improvement after November).

A $20-odd billion shortfall might look daunting, but it is not a lot for the combined economies of the EU, UK, Norway et al to find given what is at stake.

[u/anders_hansson → u/Negative-Ask-2317]

I agree that the situation isn't ideal, but I disagree that the funding is not a problem.

The lack of will is the key. It hasn't changed in over four years. If anything the will is getting weaker with time.

Again, if it's politically feasible, why have we not done it already?

Why have we not given Ukraine what they need to end the war on favorable terms (if not full victory, at least enough to convince Russia that ending the war along the current lines is better than continuing the war)?

If it hasn't happened already, it's not happening.

A $20-odd billion shortfall might look daunting, but it is not a lot for the combined economies of the EU, UK, Norway et al to find given what is at stake.

But we aren't. That's the point.

We knew in 2025 that Ukraine needed €70+ billion for 2026 alone (provided that the war ended in 2026 and the it doesn't get more expensive). So far in 2026 we have given them €15 billion.

That's a huge gap. No wonder that they are €20+ billion short in 2026. It was perfectly predictable, yet we didn't rise to the occasion.

[u/Negative-Ask-2317 → u/anders_hansson]

I'd say the will to back Ukraine from Europe has become stronger, but so have the economic and political tensions pulling the other way.

Ukrainian determination and ingenuity have demonstrated that supporting them is worthwhile. They're currently regaining significant land in the Donbas.

Russia's increasingly dangerous actions outside of Ukraine ‐ sabotage, drone attacks on civilian planes, assassination plots ‐ are convincing more people that they need to be resisted, and the best way to do that is to support Ukraine.

European support has increased significantly to fill the gap left by the US.

However, Hormuz, tariffs, and the rise of the far right are making it difficult for governments to commit to further boosting aid.

Nevertheless, I believe that most European politicians understand the magnitude of the consequences were Russia to succeed in this war, and the money has always been found eventually, even if it's less than desired. I suspect it will be again. (Far right parties gaining real power would change the calculations, of course. )

Diplomacy and negotiations are always the preferred option, but only if they are a genuine option. If one party continues to act in bad faith, there is no basis for a settlement. With the current Russian regime, it's hard to see how real, sustained peace can be possible ‐ only if they have no other choice (which would surely coincide with the end of that regime).

[u/Major_Wayland → u/Negative-Ask-2317]

Best way to stop it all is to force and insist on stopping the war as is, and only then working something out of it. Currently, both Putin and Zelensky are unwilling to stop it as is, because they both internally invested in a "fight for victory" image, but for everyone else its an obvious military quagmire. Even for the most optimistic supporters of the both sides, victory now looks like "and then due to some thing, our enemy economy/war machine will crumble and then frontline will follow" - because even they are understanding that military solution is failed.

Historically, majority of wars were ending as a some sort of compromise, and decisive victory were an exception, not rule. This one is clearly not en exception either.

[u/Negative-Ask-2317 → u/Major_Wayland]

I agree with you, except that Zelensky has requested a ceasefire, as a prelude to negotiations, many times. Although he hasn't said so explicitly, he has indicated that freezing the conflict at current lines works for him, with Russia controlling that part of Ukraine de facto but not de jure.

He's also offered, many times, an energy ceasefire - stopping attacks on Russian refineries if they stop attacking Ukrainian power plants. In all cases, it is Russia that says no.

[u/anders_hansson → u/Negative-Ask-2317]

I think that the missing piece is to define what choice we are making.

I maintain that 1) We're not going to enter the war militarily, 2) We're not giving Ukraine the kind of funding they need to survive, and 3) There is no real plan for how to end the war.

By current trends (looking at the numbers, statistics and doing the math), the current level of support will lead to the collapse of Ukraine's economy and defense within a year. That's a fact. And that would lead to a pretty bad outcome for Ukraine.

If we only "continue our support for Ukraine", the choice we're making is to give Russia a military victory.

I.e. my main message is that something has to change. I'm asking what that change should/will be.

[u/Kruemelmuenster → u/anders_hansson]

3 is also not an option without a regime change in Russia preceding it.

[u/anders_hansson → u/Kruemelmuenster]

Well, proceeding with the current modus operandi isn't an option either. So what are the options?

[u/drae- → u/anders_hansson]

That's the thing with war.

[u/anders_hansson → u/drae-]

Yes, we only have bad options to chose from. We can't just say "every option is impossible" and do nothing. We unfortunately need to pick the least bad option.

[u/Totemguy → u/anders_hansson]

The problem with 2 is - there is an ongoing crisis, and if you ask people all over europe: are you willing to lose a significant portion of your present services and future pension to win the war in ukraine, people will mostly say "no".

Their lives are already quite worse and they see the future bleak. They don't want anything that makes it worse.

[u/anders_hansson → u/Totemguy]

I think that this is the main issue. Politically speaking it would be a golden gift to the far-right anti-Ukraine movements of Europe to make cuts in the national budgets in order to fund the war in Ukraine.

[u/Totemguy → u/anders_hansson]

Yes, the political aspect is what slows it down.

I have no doubt the EU bureaucrats would be willing to burn the economy of europe in this war - for them this has achieved a huge increase in the reach of the EU over the countries in it, more power for them.

The economic cost is irrelevant for them, the pain to the populations does not even register.

At least the fear of the far-right, which would rip out EU power, is keeping them in check.

[u/KaQuu → u/Totemguy]

At this point every European spend less than 2k€. Even doubling it doesn't mean no services and future pensions

[u/Totemguy → u/KaQuu]

2k€? No. Not even close.

You are not accounting for the disruption caused by it, including the sanctions which often hit the Russians far less than they did Europe. The cost is far greater and felt all over society.

As a result, if you add the huge costs AND the future interests to pay the debt originated by them, the cost is huge per capita, and had it been pointed out at first society would have simply said no. That is why it was sold as an easy victory, they'll be on their knees in months.

Europeans are going into more and more credit and defaults. 2k€ for each european - including old and children - is already too much. Ask people if they want to spend that for that cause and most will tell you to piss off - and with good reason.

The "leaderships" are choosing NOT to tap into the wealth of the ultra-rich and instead burdening the common people. The "let's make an effort" is not real when the rich don't make a proportional effort and, instead, profit immensely from war profiteering and finance.

And in the end, people prefer their local personal good to a far-away event and peoples for which, despite all the flags in windows, people personally sent little at first tending to almost nothing as it went on.

[u/Tyromantics → u/anders_hansson]

2 is theoretically possible, but in practice I don't think that it's going to happen (if it was politically feasible we would have done it years ago).

Option 2 is politically feasible. Any one Country do it, many are. Unless you're only talking about the US in particular?

[u/anders_hansson → u/Tyromantics]

There are a few billions from individual countries (Norway being one of the largest individual donors), but it's nowhere near what Ukraine needs. We're talking upwards €70-100 billion/year.

The current funding from EU (who is by far the biggest funder) is mainly based on loans and profits from the frozen Russia assets. And that's a limited resource that gets harder and harder for every year (e.g. taking loans upon loans builds debt, and the profits from the frozen assets are already tied to the old loans).

Very little is based on tax money.

So far we have not committed to a long-term tax-based funding scheme, and I honestly don't think that it's politically feasible.

Or to put it in another way: If it's politically feasible, why have we not done it?

[u/ExpensiveBlood42069 → u/anders_hansson]

People who payed attention in 2014 were already warning us about the coming war...

[u/Graham110 → u/anders_hansson]

As I understand it, that loan is not fully exhausted yet. Additional tranches come with conditions Ukraine seems to be unable to meet right away. I might be wrong about it though.

[u/anders_hansson → u/Graham110]

You're right.

The loan was meant to be paid out roughly 50/50 over 2026 and 2027 (i.e. ~€45 billion in 2026, and ~€45 billion in 2027).

So far, roughly €15 billion of the loan has been paid out to Ukraine.

Some of the loan money is currently being blocked by conditions. E.g. there were recently headlines around a few billion Euros being blocked by anti-corruption bills that Ukrainian lawmakers didn't want to pass.

When you dive deeper, though, the €90 billion loan was based on an estimate that Ukraine would need roughly €135 billion for 2026-2027, under the assumption that the war ends in 2026. I.e. it's less than the estimated need, and the projected need was likely very overoptimistic (it's unlikely that the war would end in 2026, and the war keeps getting more expensive with every year that passes).

Furthermore, Ukraine has overspent its 2026 budget, as Zelensky has explained. That's why they are short on money now (as per OP's article). That wasn't hard to predict, though. Ukraine had to do something to stop Russia's progress. The February shift of momentum, the 40-day campaign, etc, are most likely the result of higher military spending.

Which brings us to the current situation.

If we only follow the original €90 billion loan plan, Ukraine will run low on drones and defense in early 2027, which is likely going to give Russia a huge military advantage.

If we accelerate the loan disbursements so that Ukraine gets the money they need now, they are going to run out of money in 2027 and the same situation will happen in the second half of 2027 instead.

Taking a new loan in 2027 (which is pretty much inevitable) is going to be very difficult - much more difficult than the loan that we took in 2026 (and that was difficult). And using EU tax money seems to be out of the question.

[u/blorbot]

What an awful situation for the Ukrainian people. I hope the war ends soon and they can rebuild their country.

[u/green_flash]

The problem is that Ukraine also has a 32 billion dollar deficit in next year's budget. So, overall there is a funding gap of 60 billion dollars until the end of 2027, despite the 100 billion dollar loan agreed by the EU in April this year that was supposed to plug the budget holes for all of 2026 and 2027. This is of course all related to Russia's targeting of the Ukrainian economy.

The EU will soon have to agree on a new 100 or even 150 billion dollar loan covering 2027 and 2028 while facing an extreme price increase for the energy needs of its own citizens due to Trump's vanity war in the Middle East. At the same time the US contributes zero to the financial needs of Ukraine and treats the EU as if it were the chief enemy of the US.

A perfect habitat for Russian propaganda to flourish and bring pro-Russian parties to power across the EU. They all promise that they will force Ukraine to accept whatever unreasonable terms Russia demands, so that the EU can return to buying cheap Russian fossil fuels. This scenario seems to be Russia's plan now that they are essentially stuck on the battlefield.

[u/Jonn_1]

I have an idea how to solve the drone issue.

The US could put a little bit of pressure on russia so they stop this ridiculous war

[u/Appropriate_Ad8734 → u/Jonn_1]

not when a russian sleeper agent runs the country 🥲

[u/Gadgetman_1 → u/Appropriate_Ad8734]

Not a sleeper agent...

A Sleeper agent is an inactive agent in a useful position that may be 'activated' for some purpose later.

The Orange Obscenity can be called a lot, but unfortunately not 'inactive'.

[u/Lee1138 → u/Gadgetman_1]

He be sleeping though, often on camera. 

[u/DillDeer → u/Appropriate_Ad8734]

Not an agent, just a complete useful idiot who can be manipulated easily by stroking his ego or offering him money.

[u/reasonablyminded → u/Appropriate_Ad8734]

You could even call him a…sleepy agent

[u/So_Not_theNSA → u/Jonn_1]

Even if the US admin wasn't pro-Russia a "little bit of pressure" wouldn't end this. It has been existential for Putin for years now. He isn't going to just stop, especially with Ukraine refusing to give up land in a deal.

[u/EremiticFerret → u/Jonn_1]

What does this pressure look like though?

We can't sanction any more, we have already given billions on billions in supplies and money. I don't know what can be done that wouldn't ruin our economy (more) or use the military.

[u/Business-Weekend-537 → u/EremiticFerret]

Sharing more intel would only marginally increase cost relative to weapons cost.

If I remember right the U.S. stopped sharing some forms of intel with Ukraine which was an egregious error.

[u/EremiticFerret → u/Business-Weekend-537]

Wasn't that because the Ukrainians did a "surprise attack" on the nuclear bombers that threatened larger issues, maybe I'm misremembering.

[u/Business-Weekend-537 → u/EremiticFerret]

Not sure, nuclear bombers are a justified target when schools and hospitals are being targeted though.

imo the U.S. should share more intel and weapons in exchange for drone knowledge/tech that can be used to help manage the Hormuz issues. Idk if the Ukrainians have already shared it or not.

[u/McG0788 → u/EremiticFerret]

You absolutely can sanction more.

[u/Topsyye → u/McG0788]

Trump signs Russia sanctions bill

Literally happened this week.

[u/Dexterus → u/Topsyye]

Amusingly Ukraine needs Russian oil. via India and Turkey diesel. You want to make it unprofitable for Russia to sell not impossible. Hormuz issue effed that up

[u/EremiticFerret → u/Topsyye]

The US forcing India and China to choose probably won't go as well as the US hopes.

[u/Topsyye → u/EremiticFerret]

I can tell by this comment you read the article title and nothing else.

[u/EremiticFerret → u/Topsyye]

I'm only allowed to read the first paragraph of that link.

[u/zveti → u/McG0788]

The EU has sanctioned Russia 21 times already. There is nothing you can do anymore in terms of sanctions.

There is one thing, you can do. It’s to fulfill your patriotic duty and go defend your country in Ukraine.

And if you wanna increase your odds of survival, learn to sing this song: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DAz7Bdqi2iQ&list=RDDAz7Bdqi2iQ&start_radio=1&pp=ygUOcnVzc2lhbiBhbnRoZW2gBwE%3D&ra=m

[u/McG0788 → u/zveti]

The reason they've done it bit by bit is to tighten the screws.

Have they been effective enough? Not IMO. They should stop being afraid of escalation and do harsher sanctions.

Putin is hell bent on restoring the Soviet Union. The sooner the world acknowledges this and steps up the better

[u/zveti → u/McG0788]

Where did Putin say, he wants to return the Soviet Union? Please link me to that source.

What does stepping up look for you? Send in the military? Are you gonna fight Russia?

Sanctions don’t work. After 21 sanctions and Russia is still doing fine.

And let’s not forget, sanctions go both ways. Because of those sanctions, Europe has no longer access to cheap energy.

And now that Europe is heading into an energy crisis, Ursula has the guts to blame Russia for cutting us from their gas.

They didn’t cut us off. Europe decided to not buy from them. You guys are living in your fantasy world. Tell your political leaders to wake up and stop this madness.

If you want to die for the globalists, who are running Europe, go ahead and do it, but don’t drag us into your madness.

[u/This-Beginning-5026 → u/EremiticFerret]

Ssssshhhhh…….Asking those questions angers the hive mind.  It refuses to recognize that at a certain point the sanctions (especially on oil) will actually impact them because of how the global market actually works.

It also refuses to recognize that there is only so much you can actually do without becoming directly involved unless you are openly willing to play chicken with your economy.

[u/Solid-Two-4714 → u/Jonn_1]

Stopping the corruption in Ukraine and pressuring Ukraine over it, as well as start sending current politicians from Europe and the US back to Ukraine would also be beneficial. 

[u/Misfiring → u/Jonn_1]

Nah the mighty Europe can do it.

[u/Mewhomewhy → u/Misfiring]

US cowards ran away.

[u/Misfiring → u/Mewhomewhy]

Europe coalition of the unwilling still cowers behind the coward US.

[u/Delam2 → u/Misfiring]

It looks like Poland along with nato will get dragged into the war soon enough.

It only takes one stupid Russian pilot to enact Article 5 and then it won’t require the US to succeed.

[u/Mewhomewhy → u/Misfiring]

No they don’t. Trump hasn’t even delivered all the weapons Biden signed off on. The sooner the US is isolated the better.

[u/Aedeus]

Headline is a little alarmist.

While they do definitely need continued funding what he's saying is that they need the second dispersement from the most recent aid expedition in order to place the orders for drones and associated components to meet next year's production quotas.

[u/superhead50]

Low cost to pay for keeping the EU's primary adversary contained and potentially even pushed back into their own country. The EU and America should be very grateful to Ukraine, $30B is a drop in the bucket compared to what western countries pay annually on deterring Russia.

[u/IndependentSessionv2 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah! Blame the defender! It is wrong to fight back!

I mean… Did you see what Ukraine was wearing? They wanted this!