This study assesses the cost of the Russo-Ukrainian war for Ukraine from a financial and economic perspective. From February 2022 to December 2024, Ukraine’s war-related cost is estimated at a minimum of approximately USD 370 billion. This figure includes the costs associated with GDP losses (lower-end estimate), destruction of physical and natural capital, and financial capital losses reflected in declining market capitalisation. To put this into perspective, this is more than the amount (over USD 220 billion) spent on rebuilding Iraq between 2003 and 2014, as well as the amount, i.e., USD 141 billion, spent by the United States government on reconstruction in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2021. The entire cost of Syria’s reconstruction was also estimated to be anywhere between USD 250 billion and USD 400 billion in 2021. Second, Ukraine’s government spending has surged dramatically, with defence expenditures alone rising by an extraordinary 794.6% in 2022. Although any specific expenditure amount cannot be classified as a direct and immediate cost for the Ukrainian government due to the heavy reliance on external budget financing, including grants and loans, during these years, loans have constituted a larger share of external support, reflecting a cost of war deferred to the future. Beyond the debtservicing costs, the country faces other long-term financial commitments, including recovery and reconstruction needs (amounting to USD 524 billion from 2025 to 2035), higher defence spending requirements for a prolonged period, and social security needs to support veterans and war-affected citizens. Only through a lasting peace can Ukraine fully unlock its economic potential and rebuild a resilient and growth-driven economy.
Share this article
The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle
Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir
Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic
After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.
Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.
Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.
May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power
Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.
