The global aid response on Ukraine is too short term; countries need to talk to each other

International organizations and governments offering aid to Ukraine are not targeting their assistance effectively, according to an article by?Giuseppe Grossi?and Veronika Vakulenko (Nord University) that we published today in Public Money & Management. See

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09540962.2022.2061694

More than $15 billion overall has been pledged so far in financial, technical and humanitarian support since Russia’s?invasion in February triggered a human-made crisis.

A comprehensive analysis of 35 national governments, including the USA as well as half a dozen international organizations such as the World Bank, shows they were swift to respond. However, their actions have been neither cost-effective nor appropriate and too focused on the short term. Instead, donors should be prioritizing sustainable goals such as rebuilding the country post-invasion. “Our initial analysis shows paradoxical responses that give priority not only to humanitarian aid but also to military aid, and focus primarily on short-term measures”?according to lead author Giuseppe Grossi. “This is rather than addressing the long-term impacts and the reconstruction of a free and democratic Ukraine. Governments possess the ideas and political tools to handle the immediate effects of a human-made disaster. However, they may lack both the capacity to use these tools cost-effectively and the appropriate strategies to meet the various needs in a responsible and accountable way. This is especially from a long-term perspective”.

The PMM article provides important insights in assessing and re-evaluating support packages for human-made disasters and subsequent humanitarian crises.?The article shines a spotlight on whether humanitarian help benefits those in crisis and highlights lessons that need to be learned for future events.

Responses by countries, NGOs and international organizations are individually documented in the article, which includes actions taken by the European Commission, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), International Committee of the Red Cross, and the United Nations.

Information from official websites and press releases was used by the authors to assess the multiple responses to the invasion. Types of humanitarian aid are detailed per country as well as military support such as drones and fuel, and other assistance (for example legal assistance).

Help and donations were launched almost instantly but that?tensions exist in the multiple international responses to supporting Ukraine.

Military support has varied fromwith some countries being more open (for example Italy and the UK) than others (for example France and Poland) about what they have provided.

Governments and international institutions will better address future human-made crises by talking to each other and pooling their resources. More financial transparency is needed over how aid is managed.