The decision of the Board of Directors of the International Monetary Fund to approve a new four-year extended financing program for Ukraine in the amount of $8.1 billion is an important signal of stability for the economy in the conditions of war. The first tranche, expected in the near future, should amount to about $1.5 billion and will be aimed at covering the budget deficit and supporting macro-financial balance, as reported by the Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko .
On the one hand, such a program is a confirmation of confidence in the country's financial system and the government's ability to fulfill its obligations. In wartime, stable external financing allows us to avoid sharp spending cuts, support social programs, and maintain budget manageability. This is important for the predictability of the hryvnia exchange rate, for business, and for international partners.
On the other hand, any IMF program always includes structural conditions. And this is where the most difficult part of the political discussion begins. Among the expected steps are changes in tax policy: taxation of digital platforms, revision of benefits for parcels, changes to the military levy, and a gradual expansion of the VAT base. Some of these solutions have long been discussed in expert circles, but their implementation in wartime could cause public tension.
The topic of small business taxation is particularly sensitive. Introducing VAT for individual entrepreneurs with a certain limit is a step that will affect thousands of entrepreneurs. Even if the parameters are compromising, any expansion of the tax burden requires transparent communication and clear explanations of the goals of the reform. Otherwise, economic solutions may be perceived as fiscal pressure, rather than as an element of systemic modernization.
At the same time, the IMF program is not only about requirements. It is also about access to long-term financing and a signal to other donors, including European partners. Coordination with international institutions increases the chances of additional support and reduces risks to the country's external financial sustainability.
The result is a complex but predictable situation: financial support enhances macroeconomic stability, but structural commitments will require decisions that will be unpopular domestically. The balance between budget needs, partner demands, and social sustainability will be a key challenge in the coming years. It is the quality of the implementation of these decisions that will determine whether this program will become a development tool or remain just a forced compromise.
