Paying for Survival: Ukraine’s New Military Compact

Sunday 14 June 2026

As Ukraine is now well into the fifth year of full-scale war, the arithmetic of national survival has become increasingly unforgiving. Weapons can be manufactured, imported or financed by allies. Ammunition can be stockpiled. Drones can be designed in garages and assembled in factories. But armies ultimately depend upon people, and people are becoming Ukraine’s scarcest strategic resource.

Against this backdrop, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to increase soldiers’ salaries substantially and to expand opportunities for foreign volunteers to serve in the Armed Forces of Ukraine represents a recognition of an uncomfortable reality: modern warfare is not only a contest of firepower and technology, but also a competition for human capital.

The announced reforms are significant. Basic military pay is expected to rise to approximately UAH 30,000 per month, bringing it broadly into line with average civilian earnings, while frontline infantry personnel may receive several hundred thousand hryvnias per month depending upon their duties and combat exposure. New fixed-term contracts are also being introduced, creating clearer pathways into and out of military service.

These measures are not merely financial adjustments. They represent an attempt to redefine the relationship between the Ukrainian state and those who fight on its behalf.

For much of the war, patriotic commitment has compensated for material shortcomings. Millions of Ukrainians accepted extraordinary sacrifices because they believed the alternative was national extinction. Yet patriotism, however powerful, cannot indefinitely overcome economic realities. Families must be supported. Mortgages must be paid. Children must be educated. A society that asks individuals to risk death must also ensure that military service is economically sustainable.

The labour market has changed dramatically since 2022. Ukraine now experiences acute shortages of workers across numerous sectors. Average wages have risen as employers compete for increasingly scarce personnel. In such circumstances, military salaries that lag behind civilian opportunities inevitably create recruitment difficulties. Raising pay to match economic realities is therefore not generosity; it is necessity.

Moreover differentiated compensation for combat roles reflects a principle that many soldiers have long advocated. Not all military service entails the same risks. The infantryman holding a trench under constant drone surveillance confronts dangers vastly different from those faced by personnel in rear areas. Rewarding combat service more generously acknowledges this reality and may help address the chronic infantry shortages that have plagued Ukrainian forces.

The decision to recruit more foreign volunteers is equally understandable, although politically more complicated.

Ukraine has welcomed international volunteers since the earliest days of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Individuals from dozens of countries have travelled to Ukraine, motivated by a mixture of ideology, solidarity, military professionalism and, in some cases, economic opportunity. Estimates suggest that approximately 10,000 foreign volunteers have served since the war began.

Historically there is nothing unusual about this phenomenon. Throughout history, wars perceived as struggles of principle have attracted foreign participants. The Greek War of Independence, the Spanish Civil War and numerous anti-colonial conflicts all drew volunteers from abroad. Ukraine’s conflict has similarly acquired an international dimension because many observers view it not merely as a territorial dispute but as a contest over sovereignty, borders and the future security architecture of Europe.

Yet foreign recruitment also serves a practical purpose. Ukraine faces demographic constraints that Russia, despite her own manpower problems, can more easily absorb. Millions of Ukrainians remain abroad. Birth rates have declined. Casualties have accumulated. Every additional trained volunteer reduces pressure on domestic mobilisation and broadens the pool of specialised military skills available to commanders.

Critics may argue that relying upon foreign personnel introduces challenges of language, integration and discipline. They are correct. Military organisations function best when cohesion is strong and communication is seamless. Diverse multinational formations inevitably create administrative complications.

However modern armed forces routinely overcome such obstacles. NATO operations, foreign legions and multinational peacekeeping missions have demonstrated that effective integration is possible when institutions are properly structured. Ukraine now possesses four years of experience managing international volunteers and is arguably better equipped to expand such programmes than at any previous point in the war.

The greater question concerns sustainability.

Higher salaries and expanded recruitment channels require substantial financial resources. Ukraine’s defence budget already depends heavily upon foreign support. Although Kyiv has secured additional financing and continues to receive extensive assistance from international partners, military expenditure on the scale now contemplated will remain extraordinarily expensive.

Nevertheless the alternatives appear less attractive. Failure to maintain troop numbers would place greater strain upon existing personnel, accelerate exhaustion among combat units and undermine operational effectiveness. The costs of inadequate recruitment may ultimately exceed the costs of generous compensation.

Ukraine’s reforms reflect a broader lesson of contemporary warfare. Advanced technology has not eliminated the importance of human beings. Drones, artificial intelligence and precision weapons may transform battlefields, but they do not remove the need for motivated, trained and resilient soldiers. Even the most sophisticated military systems require people willing to operate them under conditions of extraordinary danger.

Ukraine’s decision to pay soldiers more and to seek additional foreign volunteers is therefore neither radical nor surprising. It is the logical response of a nation engaged in a prolonged war of attrition against a larger adversary. The country is attempting to create a new military compact: one that recognises sacrifice more generously, provides clearer terms of service and broadens the pool of those willing to defend Ukraine’s future.

Whether these reforms prove sufficient remains uncertain. But they demonstrate that Kyiv understands the central challenge of the next phase of the war. The struggle may be fought with drones and missiles, yet it will still be decided by people.

And people, unlike machines, must be persuaded to stay.