For nearly four years, Russia and Ukraine have fought an industrial-scale war while trying to keep their economies standing.
In addition to lost lives, this war has turned into a contest that runs on two very different engines.
One relies on external lifelines. The other relies on internal pressure. Both function, but not indefinitely.
The latest data, coupled with the surge of diplomatic activity in recent weeks, now gives a clearer sense of which side is closer to its limits.
The two largest pressures in Europe are not on the front line
Ukraine enters the fifth year of war with an economy that is smaller and scarred, though still functioning.
Real GDP collapsed by 29% in 2022 but grew again in 2023 and 2024. However, inflation has also returned to double digits since 2024.
The country’s budget depends on Western transfers for more than a third of spending, and the National Bank of Ukraine keeps the financial system stable with a tight policy rate and a heavily managed currency.
Ukraine’s external accounts would be unworkable without EU and IMF support. A large current account deficit persists once grants are excluded. None of this is surprising after years of missile strikes, blackouts, and a displaced workforce.
Russia’s economy looks larger and more active on the surface. GDP has expanded on the back of military output and public spending.
But the engines underneath tell another story.
Oil and gas revenues have fallen across 2025 compared with a year earlier.
The central bank has kept interest rates above 16% to control inflation and capital flight. Industrial capacity is stretched. The labour market has been drained by mobilisation and migration.
Official unemployment sits near record lows, not because companies are booming but because the workforce has been hollowed out.
Russia’s current account surplus has shrunk by roughly forty percent this year. The war economy runs hot, yet its future growth prospects run cold.
Both countries have absorbed shocks that would have broken them a decade ago. Both have adapted.
But the way they withstand pressure points directly to what each can lose.
Why the diplomatic noise matters more than it seems
The recent “peace plan” meetings between Trump advisers, Ukrainian officials, and Kremlin envoys expose the economic clocks ticking behind each capital.
Kyiv’s representatives want to know whether Washington will continue backing heavy financing and weapons.
Moscow wants to know how long it must hold out before cracks appear in Western unity. Both sides speak of peace, but neither believes the other is ready for it.
Ukraine’s negotiators understand that their economy survives because Europe and the IMF keep it funded. A gap in that support would hit faster than any shift on the front.
Russia knows this too. This is why the Kremlin flatters Trump’s envoys and criticises European leaders as obstructive.
Splitting the West is cheaper than producing shells. Every month that passes without a clear US position increases Russian leverage.
The United States is sending mixed signals. Some inside the administration want a quick settlement that gives Russia advantages.
Others push back and work with Europe to narrow the space for Russian demands.
This inconsistency feeds uncertainty for Ukraine and encourages Moscow to stall.
If Russia hoped these divisions would buy it time, it may succeed, but only for a limited period. Russia’s own economic strain mounts under the delay.
Who pays more for every extra month of war
Ukraine pays in bodies, infrastructure, and external debt. Manpower shortages are real. Long-range Russian drones cut into supply routes.
The energy grid needs constant patching.
Peace talks that freeze the conflict without firm guarantees would leave Ukraine open to another attack in a few years.
Russia pays in erosion rather than collapse. Oil revenues fall, insurance and shipping costs rise as Ukrainian drones hit refineries and tankers.
Sanctions tighten. China extracts more concessions as Russia loses options. Demographics deteriorate.
Casualty levels run into the hundreds of thousands. Budget spending on the military pushes out education, healthcare, and investment.
Ordinary Russians face rising taxes and inflation.
The war economy raises incomes in parts of the defence sector but leaves most households worse off. Over time, this mix weakens the state’s capacity to rebuild or modernise.
Ukraine’s losses are immediate and visible. Russia’s losses are cumulative and structural. Ukraine can recover if its partners choose to fund that recovery.
Russia cannot import a new demographic base or new technology ecosystem once the war ends. Its trajectory is harder to reverse than Ukraine’s.
The numbers point toward a surprising long-term asymmetry
At first glance, Ukraine looks like the weaker side. It depends on foreign funding, carries political tension after the Energoatom scandal, and cannot match Russia’s manpower or industry.
A sudden drop in Western support would hit within weeks.
The longer view, however, looks different. Ukraine’s post-2014 reforms held under invasion. The financial system stayed functional, and governance remains more open than Russia’s.
Integration with the EU grid and the IMF gives Ukraine access to capital and expertise that Moscow cannot replace.
Reconstruction would lift growth for years.
Russia’s position is thinner than its GDP suggests. Defence spending above seven percent of output strains the budget.
Oil and gas revenues fall. Interest rates stay high. Industry lacks components. Foreign investment has vanished. China buys Russian energy on its own terms, increasing dependence.
A war economy needs people, savings and diversified exports. Russia has none.
Its economic path bends downward while Ukraine’s can rise if peace and Western backing hold.
The side with more to lose depends on the horizon
Ukraine is more vulnerable in the short view. Its budget and military supply chains need continuous foreign support.
A cut in European funding or a shift in US policy would squeeze it fast. Russia can still produce weapons, mobilise workers, and absorb inflation for a while.
The medium view moves in the opposite direction. Russia’s economic base weakens each quarter that heavy defence spending continues.
Its population shrinks. Its ties to China deepen into dependence. Its ability to fund development erodes.
Ukraine, if supported, can recover strength through reconstruction, investment, and institutional integration.
The long view is the clearest. Russia faces the risk of long-term national decline. Ukraine faces the risk of short-term exhaustion.
Only one of these is irreversible.
The post Who has more to lose from this war: Is it Russia’s or Ukraine’s economy? appeared first on Invezz
