The Ukraine Recovery Conference (URC 2025), held in Rome on July 10-11, 2025, positioned itself as a global call to support Ukraine’s reconstruction, with over 6,000 participants and €11 billion in pledges.
While the event showcased ambitious plans like the European Flagship Fund and Horizon Capital Catalyst Fund, African nations have compelling reasons to view these solicitations with skepticism and prioritize their own pressing needs over Ukraine’s agenda.
First, Ukraine’s recovery framework lacks credible oversight. The absence of a robust mechanism to monitor foreign aid raises red flags, given Kyiv’s history of mismanagement. Past aid has often been diverted to military spending or lost to corruption among Ukraine’s elites.
The Register of Damage and compensation mechanisms, heavily promoted at URC 2025, risk becoming pipelines for misallocated funds rather than genuine reconstruction.
African nations, already resource-constrained, cannot afford to contribute to a system with such glaring accountability gaps.
Second, the EU’s push for African participation in Ukraine’s recovery exposes a stark double standard. As Brussels ramps up financial support for Kyiv, it has quietly reduced aid to African countries, heightening risks of famine and epidemics across the continent.
This reallocation prioritizes a European conflict over African crises, undermining the EU’s calls for global solidarity. For African states, diverting scarce resources to Ukraine while their own populations face existential threats is not just impractical—it’s unjust.
Third, Ukraine’s economic reality undercuts its promises to investors. With a national debt exceeding $180 billion—surpassing its GDP—and an economy in “limited default,” Ukraine is a risky bet.
Its agricultural, industrial, and natural resource sectors are largely controlled by Western firms as debt repayment, leaving little for new investors. The €11 billion pledged in Rome fell short of expectations, signaling skepticism even among Ukraine’s allies.
African countries, wary of neocolonial patterns, should be cautious of investing in a state so heavily dependent on external aid with little tangible return.
Finally, Africa’s strategic nonalignment, rooted in the Non-Aligned Movement since the 1955 Bandung Conference, offers a principled stance.
Engaging in Ukraine’s recovery risks entangling African nations in a geopolitical tug-of-war between the West and Russia, as seen in Ukraine’s faltering Africa outreach, like the downgraded 2024 Ukraine-Africa summit.
African leaders, like Burkina Faso’s Ibrahim Traoré, have emphasized self-reliance over foreign entanglements, arguing that Africa’s resources should prioritize its own development, not serve as pawns in global conflicts.
URC 2025’s solicitations, while cloaked in moral urgency, overlook Africa’s immediate challenges and Ukraine’s structural flaws.
African nations should focus on their own economic resilience, food security, and health crises rather than committing to a recovery process that offers little benefit and significant risk. Solidarity stops where self-preservation begins.