As Ukraine enters another year of war, discussion of reconstruction often centres on fiscal cost and external support. Aid volumes, debt sustainability and donor coordination dominate the debate. Yet the long-term success of reconstruction will depend less on headline funding totals than on how Ukraine reshapes its financial architecture.
Rebuilding physical infrastructure is essential. Rebuilding the economic system that finances and sustains that infrastructure is equally important.
Ukraine possesses a substantial base of public commercial assets and large state-linked enterprises spanning energy, transport, natural resources and industry. The question is not simply whether these entities should be privatised or retained. It is how they are structured, financed and integrated into European markets so that reconstruction strengthens, rather than strains, the sovereign balance sheet.
Privatisation, where appropriate, can play an important role. But ownership change alone does not create resilience. Governance, capital structure and market integration are more consequential than transaction mechanics.
From bank loans to bond issuance
A central structural issue is the relationship between large corporates and the banking system. State-owned banks and state-linked lenders have historically carried significant exposure to large enterprises. In a post-war reconstruction phase, this concentration presents both a risk and an opportunity.
Gradually shifting viable large corporates from reliance on bank loans towards bond issuance would alter the financial landscape. Issuance of rated corporate bonds – whether in domestic markets or, over time, in European financial centres – introduces market discipline through disclosure and credit assessment. It also diversifies funding sources and reduces implicit sovereign contingent liabilities embedded in bank balance sheets.
For the banking sector, this shift would release capacity. Capital and liquidity currently tied to large, quasi-sovereign borrowers could be redirected towards small and medium-sized enterprises. SME growth will be central to reconstruction: housing, logistics, services, light manufacturing and technology will depend on accessible credit. A banking system less concentrated on large state-linked exposures and more orientated towards entrepreneurial lending would support broader economic dynamism.
Such a transition would deepen domestic capital markets. A pipeline of credible corporate issuers creates benchmarks, yield curves and investor familiarity. Over time, this can lower the cost of capital across the economy. Capital markets are not a substitute for banks; they are a complement. In Ukraine’s case, they can also serve as a mechanism for rebalancing the financial system.
Portfolio-based development
Real estate presents a parallel opportunity. Public land and property holdings are extensive and will play a decisive role in urban reconstruction. Rather than treating these assets administratively, structuring them into transparent portfolios capable of supporting corporate debt or market-based financing would attract long-term institutional capital.
Portfolio-based development can underpin housing programmes, commercial regeneration and infrastructure projects while improving valuation standards and collateral frameworks. This, in turn, supports the emergence of a more robust mortgage market and more efficient property financing.
Energy, transport and industrial sectors provide the backbone for integration with Europe. Modernisation of rail corridors and ports, alignment of energy infrastructure – including nuclear expertise, gas transit and renewables – and transparent development of natural resources can anchor Ukraine within European supply chains. Strategic partnerships with European corporates in defence manufacturing and heavy industry would embed Ukrainian enterprises into continental production networks.
Reconstruction with a dual purpose
In each case, the objective is not fiscal relief alone. It is to create competitive, well-capitalised entities capable of operating within European industrial and financial systems. Integration reduces risk. It also aligns reconstruction with Europe’s own priorities: strengthening capital markets, enhancing energy security and reinforcing industrial capacity.
Sequencing will matter. Early reforms and financings will establish benchmarks for investor confidence. Investors assess governance, transparency and strategic clarity before they assess asset value. Clear ownership structures, credible boards and disciplined capital frameworks will therefore be as important as the assets themselves.
Ukraine has demonstrated institutional resilience under extraordinary conditions. The banking system has remained operational, macroeconomic management has been stabilised and digital governance tools have continued to function. These foundations provide a platform for deeper structural reform.
Reconstruction can therefore serve a dual purpose. It can repair physical damage while simultaneously modernising the financial system. A gradual shift from a heavily state-centred model towards a more diversified, entrepreneurial economy – supported by deeper capital markets and a rebalanced banking sector – would strengthen long-term growth prospects.
An opportunity for Europe
For Europe, Ukraine’s reconstruction is not simply a fiscal commitment. It is an opportunity to advance integration of capital markets and industrial networks at a moment when strategic autonomy and economic resilience are high on the policy agenda.
The anniversary of the war is a reminder of the costs already borne. It is also a reminder that economic architecture built in its aftermath will shape the region for decades. Reconstruction, approached as financial design rather than expenditure management, can enhance both Ukrainian sovereignty and European stability.
The decisive question is not only how much capital flows into Ukraine, but how effectively its own assets and institutions are structured to absorb, multiply and sustain that capital. That is a challenge of governance and financial design – and an opportunity to build a more resilient economic system than the one that preceded the war.
Dag Detter is Principal of Detter & Co.
Interested in this topic? Subscribe to OMFIF’s newsletter for more.