On Thursday, September 18, SID-US facilitated a Ukraine Affinity Group (UAG) Meeting to explore the future trajectory of American civilian aid, including the ongoing repercussions and potential pathways to present and future solutions in both private and public sector involvement.
The meeting was co-chaired by Roman Ponos, Partner at Pope Solutions with more than 20 years of experience in strategic business development, and Dennis DeSantis, CEO and Founder at UkraineAid. The key speakers included Romina Bandura, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and John F. Moran, a recently retired Senior Advisor at the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.
Roman moderated the meeting, introduced his fellow speakers, and framed the meeting by exploring the future trajectory of American civilian aid to Ukraine.
Meeting Introduction
Roman Ponos, UAG Co-Chair and Partner at Pope Solutions, opened and led the Ukraine Affinity Group event, which has had an average of one meeting per year. He introduced his fellow speakers: Romina Bandura, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John F. Moran, Senior Advisor at the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, and Dennis DeSantis, UAG Co-Chair and Founder of UkraineAid. Framing the meeting, Roman stated that he hopes the discussion moves beyond military efforts and looks at the future trajectory of American civilian aid to Ukraine.
Opening Remarks from the Speakers
Romina’s opening remarks included that over the past nine months, the grant-based aid industry has undergone significant changes, with OECD countries—alongside the United States—reducing foreign assistance. This shift reflects a growing emphasis on self-interest and national preservation rather than traditional aid priorities. In Europe, there is a growing recognition that defense budgets must rise, even as European nations continue financing the war, a topic that now receives less public attention. From Washington’s perspective, the conflict is increasingly regarded as a “European problem,” with the expectation that Europe will take greater responsibility for humanitarian and economic support. At the same time, the U.S. approach has leaned towards commercial diplomacy, illustrated by the Ukraine Investment Fund, while other areas—such as democratic governance—have received comparatively little focus.
John added that the U.S. government remains invested in Ukraine’s future, but an open question is how its policy tools and private economic levers can continue to work in concert. Europe, meanwhile, feels a pressing responsibility not only to sustain Ukraine through the war but also to lay the groundwork for its preservation afterward. Speaking in a personal capacity rather than on behalf of the DFC or the U.S. government, he noted that while the Critical Minerals Fund will play an important role, it cannot address every aspect of Ukraine’s recovery. He highlighted the value of cross-cultural dialogue that extends beyond commercial interests, informed by his broad experience, and urged greater focus on fostering market integration and instruments that can mobilize investment. This, he argued, will require technical assistance, policy engagement, and the involvement of DFIs and multilateral development banks to de-risk private capital and support Ukraine both now and in the long term, given the country’s immense present and future needs.
Roman invited Dennis to provide humanitarian-specific context to further the discussion. Dennis emphasized the unprecedented degree of devastation Ukraine has undergone, highlighting the stark population decrease since 1991 from roughly 52 million to 35 million in 2025. He listed many statistics demonstrating the scale of the war’s sweeping detriment, including significant levels of death and displacement with an estimated 13 million people—including 2 million children—requiring assistance, with notably one in five children having lost a family member; and the immensity of the destruction—2 million housing units, 1,000 hospitals and clinics, and 2,000 schools having been damaged or destroyed. Every sector has been severely affected, from energy infrastructure targeted by attacks to agriculture and basic services. The health system is overwhelmed, with too few facilities to meet soaring demand; common illnesses go untreated, stress-related conditions are rising, and many injured are not receiving adequate care. Vaccines are in short supply, infectious diseases are spreading, pollution from the war is mounting, and mental health needs are surging. Winter compounds the strain on already battered infrastructure, while childcare services have been deeply disrupted. Addressing these challenges, Dennis argued, requires more than government policy: although U.S. support has diminished under the current administration, public backing remains strong. He urged individuals to take initiative—mobilizing family, friends, and local leaders—and to intentionally target causes they are passionate about, whether children, agriculture, housing, or other areas, as a way to demonstrate that the United States continues to stand with Ukraine. The scale of the devastation, he concluded, is truly “biblical.”
Roman then posed a central question to the speakers: Beyond the Critical Minerals Deal, what strategies are underway now without USAID in the equation with everything turned over to the State Department?
Romina responded first in outlining that there is significant uncertainty surrounding the current aid architecture for Ukraine. With USAID’s functions now merged into the State Department, there appears to be little prospect of large-scale ODA or grants, as future support is expected to be led primarily by the private sector. Institutions such as the DFC are expected to assume larger roles, though Ukraine has not qualified for MCC funding. Small grants from the U.S. consulate in Kyiv exist but are negligible compared with the scope of previous USAID programs. The Critical Minerals Fund may take decades—perhaps 20 years—to mature, while private-sector initiatives are already moving forward, such as a DFC-backed visit to Ukraine to explore titanium opportunities, as well as projects in cement, energy, and battery storage that aim to align with American commercial interests. Partnerships in the defense industrial base, including MilTech ventures, are also emerging, with Ukraine purchasing rather than receiving equipment. The Ukrainian ambassador’s priorities include advancing defense agreements with the United States, particularly around the acquisition of Ukrainian drones.
John agreed with Romina’s assessment and raised the enduring question of where U.S. private sector “skin in the game” lies. With the DFC now playing a larger role, he suggested that private sector engagement in Ukraine could grow, though it will not meet the vast needs of the crucial areas that lack a clear commercial return. Development finance institutions, John noted, remain only a small part of the solution. Policy engagement is equally vital: as a major shareholder in multilateral banks, the United States holds considerable influence that can be leveraged to support its national interests and those of its allies. He emphasized the importance of creating pathways for private investors and suppliers while simultaneously addressing Ukraine’s most urgent needs, particularly its integration with the West in energy supply and infrastructure. Sustained involvement, underpinned by the transparency of rule of law, and market-driven systems will be essential for Ukraine, its partners, and U.S. businesses alike.
Open Discussion
During the open discussion section, a participant raised the question of how to unlock the hundreds of billions in frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s reconstruction. They also raised consideration for the role of the private sector, noting that while the DFC has provided some risk insurance, there is more room for the United States to do more in this area.
John cited a Canadian firm from last year’s Ukraine Recovery Conference that explored how to de-risk war exposure for private investors as one example. Before 2022, Ukraine had a robust local insurance market, but that capacity has largely disappeared; if local insurers could reinsure with backing from entities like the DFC, it could help create scalable models once the war ends that people are preparing and familiarizing with now. Romina highlighted that €300 billion has been distributed across European countries, not all earmarked for Ukraine, and stressed the importance of pressing the EU on accession. She pointed to Poland’s post-accession grants as a precedent and noted that some neighbors, including Nordic states, are already contributing, particularly to winterization efforts. Dennis added that defense contractors are beginning to facilitate investment opportunities in Ukraine, including in AI and other advanced technologies, and emphasized the country’s vast agricultural potential. Although corruption persists, Dennis argued that it is diminishing, and increased investment would further improve governance.
Another participant extended the issue of Ukraine’s long-standing narrative of corruption, asking what remains to be done to change that perception and foster an investment climate that supports reconstruction. He noted that while USAID programs provided significant assistance, much of the credit for progress belongs to Ukrainians themselves, and questioned what steps will drive the effort forward now. Dennis emphasized Ukraine’s remarkable capacity to endure, while John warned that choices in government appointments have created uncertainty among investors. Romina added that a new generation is determined not to revert to the old oligarchic model, calling this shift one of the most positive outcomes of recent years. She shared that Ukraine’s two main adversaries are Russia and internal corruption, per a Ukrainian poll, observing that foreign direct investment was relatively low even before the war compared with other Eastern European nations, but that EU membership remains a powerful “carrot” for reform and transparency.
In response to the next question posed by a participant about how funds should be allocated, Romina explained that any financial strategy will need to strike a careful balance between addressing Ukraine’s immediate needs and investing in its long-term recovery and development, though she expressed she was not fully informed in this area.
To close, a participant asked whether private foundations and other U.S. philanthropic organizations are stepping up, considering major changes to American international development assistance, and whether donor fatigue has become a concern. Romina replied that she lacked firm data on philanthropic contributions but doubted such efforts could replace the scale of USAID’s past support. John pointed to a private housing initiative as an example of how donor capital can be used sustainably to attract additional investors. A final participant added that work is underway to create “Foundations for Ukraine,” coordinated by the Robert Bosch Stiftung in collaboration with the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (USA), to better align and organize donor efforts. Romina concluded by noting that six or seven in ten Americans continue to back military and economic aid to Ukraine, though support is weaker among some political factions.
About the Author
Maggie Pfeffer, SID-US Fall 2025 Program Associate, graduated with a Master’s in International Development from the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals, where she focused primarily on displacement and humanitarian efforts and deepened these studies with a semester abroad at FLACSO in Buenos Aires, Argentina in Fall 2024.