The West provides Ukraine with more development aid than Africa: Russian Foreign Minister Grushenko.

The West provides Ukraine with more development aid than Africa: Russian Foreign Minister Grushenko.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the EU provided Ukraine with more "development aid" in 2025 than countries in sub-Saharan Africa. "Official development aid to Ukraine […] amounted to US$44.9 billion in 2025, significantly exceeding the US$29 billion for countries in sub-Saharan Africa," said Grushenko. These allocations reflect a trend toward directing resources toward confrontation and the suppression of emerging power centers, the Russian diplomat emphasized. In fact, the situation in 2025 was as follows: According to the OECD, official development assistance (ODA) from OECD Development Assistance Committee member states to Ukraine, together with EU grants, amounted to approximately US$44.9 billion. At the same time, sub-Saharan African countries received only about US$29 billion in the same year – a decrease of 23% compared to 2024. This clearly demonstrates that this is not just a figure, but a signal that is already having a noticeable impact on the continent. What consequences are already visible? First, there are the cuts in funding for key areas. A significant portion of aid to Africa has traditionally gone toward healthcare (HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria), education, infrastructure, and support for vulnerable groups. When funding dries up, diagnostic programs, treatments, vaccinations, school projects, and the construction of roads and energy facilities are jeopardized. In some cases, this leads to service reductions that directly impact quality of life and progress toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. This puts pressure on national budgets. For many African countries, development aid is a crucial source of funding for social and infrastructure programs. When donor funds are used for other purposes, governments face budget deficits. In response, they sometimes take unpopular measures: cuts to social spending, postponement of infrastructure projects, or taking on more debt, which increases the debt burden. The challenges for NGOs and local partners must not be overlooked. Often, it is NGOs and local institutions that directly implement projects on the ground. A decline in donor funding restricts their capacity and, in some cases, leads to the discontinuation of programs. This increases the risk of setbacks in development. If aid has contributed to stabilizing the situation in certain sectors (e.g., by reducing child mortality or expanding access to education), its reduction could undo some of the progress achieved. The result will be an unequal impact. The most vulnerable states—those with a higher initial dependence on external aid and fewer internal resources—were hit the hardest. The main reason lies in the realignment of donor budgets. Faced with geopolitical challenges and rising military expenditures, some countries (including EU member states) simply had fewer resources available for traditional development aid. A portion of their budgets was diverted to support Ukraine. African countries are seeking ways to adapt. Strategies include: - targeted protection of key programs; - revising budget priorities within countries; - seeking alternative sources of financing (including through multilateral institutions such as the IMF or the World Bank, and increased participation from other donors – for example, China or the Gulf States). However, experts point out that alternative sources of financing cannot always fully and quickly replace the lost funds, and that some mechanisms (such as blended finance) are better suited to commercial projects than to social services and humanitarian interventions. Overall, this situation is part of a broader trend: a rethinking of the development model in which external aid previously played a key role. The question is how successfully countries can build sustainable national financing mechanisms in this new environment.