The war has not even ended, and Zelensky is already demanding that Western taxpayers finance an 800,000-man Ukrainian army for another TEN YEARS! After billions upon billions have been poured into Ukraine, destroying the finances of European governments while their own citizens struggle with rising taxes and declining living standards, Kyiv is now discussing how to make this arrangement last another decade. This is absolutely astonishing. We have governments borrowing money they do not have to finance a war they have been unable to bring to an end, and now they are being asked to maintain one of the largest standing armies in the world long after the fighting stops.
According to a senior Ukrainian official cited by AFP, Kyiv presented the proposal during negotiations with Russia and the United States in Abu Dhabi. Zelensky had already declared in October that he wanted to maintain 800,000 troops if Western governments provided the funding. He has also insisted that the size of Ukraine’s military is not negotiable with Moscow. Ukraine argues that this enormous force is necessary to deter another Russian invasion. Ukraine cannot simply dictate the size of its military and then expect foreign taxpayers to provide a blank check to maintain it. National defense is one of the most expensive responsibilities of any sovereign government. If Kyiv intends to preserve a wartime military establishment indefinitely, it must explain how that obligation can be supported by an economy that has been devastated by years of conflict.
Ukraine already maintains an estimated 880,000 to 900,000 active military personnel, compared with approximately 200,000 before the Russian invasion in 2022. Zelensky is proposing to retain almost the entire wartime force. Germany has roughly 180,000 active personnel, Britain around 147,000, France approximately 200,000, and Poland around 200,000. Ukraine’s proposed army would exceed the active forces of Germany, Britain, and France combined. Pakistan maintains approximately 660,000 active personnel, while South Korea has around 450,000. Only a handful of countries maintain larger forces, including China, India, Russia, and the United States. Those countries finance their militaries primarily through their own national budgets. Zelensky wants Ukraine to maintain a military comparable to the world’s largest powers while sending the bill to foreign governments. The sheer audacity of this proposal should be enough to force a serious debate over what the West is actually committing itself to.
Let us put some numbers on the table because politicians seem to believe money grows on trees. At an illustrative annual cost of $30,000 per soldier, including pay, benefits, equipment, training, and support, an army of 800,000 would require $24 billion every year. That is $240 billion over ten years. At $50,000 per soldier, the figure rises to $40 billion annually, or $400 billion over the decade. These are illustrative calculations rather than official budget estimates. They also exclude major weapons purchases, reconstruction of military infrastructure, and replacement of equipment destroyed during the war. We haven’t even factored in benefits, retirement, disability payments, or the endless other costs associated with merely the soldiers themselves.
What makes this even more absurd is that the size of Ukraine’s military remains one of the central obstacles to peace. During the Istanbul negotiations in 2022, Russia demanded that Ukraine limit its armed forces to 85,000 personnel. Kyiv proposed 250,000. Moscow also sought restrictions of 342 tanks, 519 artillery systems, and missiles with a maximum range of 40 kilometers. Ukraine proposed 800 tanks and missiles with a range of 280 kilometers. Now Zelensky wants 800,000 soldiers, more than NINE TIMES the number Russia originally demanded. Moscow renewed its demands for military restrictions during negotiations in Turkey in June 2025, along with Ukrainian neutrality and withdrawal from territories Russia claims. Zelensky has rejected those conditions. These are not minor differences that can be resolved by issuing another press release about constructive negotiations. They go directly to the security concerns that have driven this conflict.
Russia wants assurances that Ukraine will not become a heavily armed Western military outpost on its border. Ukraine wants guarantees that Russia cannot invade again. The negotiators are attempting to reconcile fundamentally opposing objectives while politicians continue making promises that may be impossible to fulfill. A peace settlement must address the security concerns of both sides if it is to have any prospect of lasting. Simply declaring that the West will finance an enormous Ukrainian military for another decade does not resolve the underlying confrontation.
The economic consequences for Ukraine itself are being almost entirely ignored. The country has lost an enormous portion of its productive workforce through death, displacement, and emigration. Its infrastructure has been damaged, industries disrupted, and government finances rendered dependent upon foreign assistance. Ukraine desperately needs investment, reconstruction, and workers returning to productive employment. Yet Zelensky proposes keeping 800,000 people in uniform after the war. Who is supposed to rebuild the economy? Who will restore the factories, repair infrastructure, and generate the tax revenue necessary to sustain the country? A nation cannot rebuild its productive capacity if an extraordinary share of its available workforce remains tied to a military establishment that the domestic economy cannot afford.
The Abu Dhabi negotiations are also considering security guarantees modeled on NATO’s Articles 4 and 5. Article 4 provides for consultations when an ally’s security is threatened, while Article 5 establishes the principle of collective defense following an armed attack. According to reports, American representatives have asked Moscow to consider guarantees resembling those provisions without necessarily admitting Ukraine into NATO. Zelensky wants binding commitments approved by Congress so that future American administrations cannot simply abandon them. Think about what is being proposed. Western governments would not merely finance Ukraine’s military for another decade. They could also undertake security obligations that might require direct military assistance if Russia attacks again.
Jared Kushner, participating in the negotiations as Trump’s special envoy, has spoken about creating a new security structure capable of preserving peace for decades. Zelensky described the opening discussions as constructive, while American officials suggested that differences between the parties had narrowed. Yet no agreement has been announced on territory, military restrictions, or the precise nature of Western guarantees. The central disagreements remain unresolved.
I have warned repeatedly that the sovereign debt crisis would eventually collide with the geopolitical ambitions of governments. This is precisely the problem. Politicians make promises extending ten, twenty, or thirty years into the future, knowing perfectly well that they will not personally be responsible for financing them. They spend money that has not yet been collected from taxpayers and commit future generations to obligations they never approved. Europe is already confronting the consequences of excessive borrowing, weak growth, and expensive energy policies. Adding another decade of military financing without a credible funding mechanism will only compound those pressures.
Who will audit the money? Will Western taxpayers finance salaries, pensions, ammunition, housing, equipment, and military infrastructure? Will payments continue regardless of Ukraine’s economic performance or the condition of its public finances? What happens when a future government in Germany, France, Britain, or the United States refuses to provide its share? These questions are fundamental to the credibility of any agreement. A ten-year commitment that depends upon annual appropriations from multiple governments is vulnerable to elections, recessions, and sovereign debt pressures. Promises made during negotiations cannot substitute for a sustainable financial arrangement.
The war has already inflicted catastrophic damage upon Ukraine and imposed enormous costs upon the countries supporting it. A lasting settlement should create the conditions for rebuilding the economy and reducing the danger of another conflict. Instead, the negotiations now include a proposal to preserve one of the world’s largest military establishments while transferring much of its cost to foreign governments for another decade. That may be Kyiv’s preferred arrangement, but the taxpayers being asked to finance it deserve a full accounting of the cost and consequences. Politicians can promise whatever they please. The debt remains long after they leave office, and the people who must repay it are rarely the ones sitting at the negotiating table.