As Ukraine approaches the fifth year of Russia’s full-scale war, the country is no longer living through a short-term emergency; it is experiencing a protracted struggle that tests its military resilience, the endurance of its democratic institutions, values, and social fabric. At the same time, global democratic backsliding and shifting geopolitical priorities are reshaping the international environment in which Ukraine’s democracy must survive and prepare for recovery.
The sudden freeze of major US government funding in early 2025 represented the latest in a series of systemic shocks to this ecosystem. It threatened not simply individual projects, but the continuity of entire organisations and networks that form the backbone of Ukraine’s public sphere.
For Europe, this is strategic. Ukraine that preserves the people, platforms, and practices of democratic life today is well placed to emerge from the war as a sovereign, democratic partner in the EU enlargement process.
Fast EED Response to US Foreign Funding Collapse
The inauguration of a new US administration in January 2025 was followed by a sudden suspension of significant portions of US foreign assistance, including long-standing support to Ukrainian media and civil society. For organisations already operating under missile attacks, blackouts, displacement, and staff mobilisation, the impact was immediate. Core costs could no longer be covered; salaries, rent, digital security, and regional bureau were at risk.
This was not simply a budget gap, but an ecosystem shock that threatened to hollow out the very actors responsible for public scrutiny, anti-corruption work, rights protection, and reliable information at a time when these functions were more necessary than ever.
Drawing on its wartime emergency response experience since 2022, EED moved quickly. Decision-making procedures were accelerated, with weekly approvals during the first phase of the crisis. In total, 37 emergency grants supported by EU funds were mobilised to stabilise key organisations across media, anti-corruption, human rights, gender, and cultural sectors.
Around three quarters of the emergency applications to EED in the first weeks of the crisis came from independent media, particularly regional and community-based outlets whose financial buffers had been thinnest and whose operational risks were highest. Support was prioritised for organisations in strategic regions such as Kharkiv, Sumy, Odesa, Kryvyi Rih, as well as for nationally recognised investigative and civic platforms.
What One Year Changed
One year on, the impact of this emergency and stabilisation support can be seen not only in organisational survival, but in the first steps towards renewed resilience and diversification.
EED’s response combined three elements. It supported experimentation with alternative funding models for emerging initiatives, including crowdfunding and commercial partnerships. It also provided more structured support to stabilise the core operations of well-established media and civil society organisations. Finally, it continued to provide support to start-up initiatives on regional and national levels.
In Sumy, the youth-oriented platform Cukr, which had lost more than half of its budget overnight, used EED support to stabilise its newsroom while redesigning its community membership programme, launching events, developing B2B production services and experimenting with merchandise as a form of civic identity and solidarity. Even after a missile strike destroyed their initial stock at a local post office, these efforts resulted in a significant increase in self-generated income and a stronger bond with their audience.
ShoTam, created by internally displaced journalists and operating through Icebreaker NGO, used its emergency lifeline to retain key staff and invest in partnerships capacity, enabling the outlet to secure a growing number of commercial and civic partners and to move substantially closer to financial sustainability.
In Cherkasy, the investigative outlet 18000 - the only independent media outlet from Cherkasy - continued publishing in-depth reporting while diversifying income through community support, local business advertising and reader contributions, bringing non-donor revenue to a level that now covers a substantial share of operational costs.
Ukrainian Toronto Television, an independent Ukrainian YouTube channel combining satire with serious socio-political analysis, mobilised its large and loyal audience and socially responsible businesses, raising significant domestic contributions at a time when public giving is overwhelmingly directed towards the war effort.
Bihus.Info, one of Ukraine’s leading investigative platforms, was able to maintain its national reach and investigative output, ensuring continued scrutiny of corruption and governance at a moment when transparency around reconstruction and public spending is becoming increasingly vital.
In parallel, anti-corruption and reform-oriented organisations such as AntAC, ANTS, ACREC and CEDEM preserved their institutional capacity, continued policy engagement, and contributed to coordinated efforts to defend the independence of oversight bodies and to provide expert input into Ukraine’s EU accession-related reforms.
Internews Ukraine and the Media Development Foundation, both Ukrainian media-support organisations, contributed to the resilience of this broader ecosystem by offering tailored assistance in management, fundraising, audience development, and strategic planning, helping organisations move from pure crisis mode toward more sustainable operational models.
Beyond media and watchdogs, EED’s emergency response also helped safeguard cultural and civic spaces that play an essential role in social cohesion and democratic life.
In Kharkiv, the cultural platform Some People continued to operate as an inclusive community hub despite repeated attacks on the city, while Chytomo sustained cultural journalism and critical reflection on Ukraine’s publishing and intellectual life under wartime conditions.
Democratic Infrastructure as a Strategic Asset
The experience of 2025 confirmed a core finding of EED’s recent impact evaluation: in Ukraine, democratic “success” under wartime conditions means keeping the infrastructure of pluralism, accountability, and civic participation alive. Independent media, watchdogs, youth and rights organisations form the connective tissue that allows democratic norms to survive even when elections are suspended and power is necessarily centralised.
EED’s long-term, gap-filling, and adaptive approach, combining emergency, core, and institutional support, proved crucial in sustaining this ecosystem through yet another systemic shock.
At the same time, the crisis exposed the limits of resilience. Domestic fundraising is constrained by the wartime economic situation and the widespread prioritisation of private donations to defence forces. Revenue diversification helps but cannot substitute long-term international commitment. Expecting full financial self-sufficiency under conditions of bombardment, displacement, and trauma is not viable in the near term.
As Ukraine enters the fifth year of an existential war, democracy support must therefore move decisively from crisis response to sustained strategic investment.
The Road Ahead
One year after the US funding cuts, Ukraine’s democratic ecosystem has shown remarkable resilience and adaptability. Ensuring its survival and strength is not only a matter of values, but a strategic investment in the kind of European, democratic Ukraine that must be ready to rebuild, reform, and fully restore its democratic life when the war draws to a close.
EED partners in Ukraine consistently underline several priorities for Europe and the wider democratic community:
These initiatives were supported thanks to the contribution of the European Union to EED.
