Episode 7 of Season II of “Budget Talks” – on state finances. Do we have enough money in the state budget to cover salaries and pensions until the end of the year? Why is Kyiv losing funding? What’s happening with international financing? And why is the competition for seats in the Accounting Chamber stalled?
In this new episode of the Budget Talks podcast, we address these and other pressing questions. Victor Maziarchuk, Head of the Center for Fiscal Policy Research, and Roksolana Pidlasa, Chair of the Budget Committee of the Verkhovna Rada, discuss what financial resources Ukraine has as it enters autumn, and what to expect from the budget during wartime.
VICTOR:
Good afternoon. Today on Budget Talks we are speaking with Roksolana Pidlasa, Chair of the Budget Committee of the Verkhovna Rada. And, of course, we’ll be talking about money—big money. Especially since there’s great news: Ukraine has just received an additional €4 billion from the European Union. We’ll also talk about the Accounting Chamber—what’s happening there now and what might lie ahead, how the new budget law was passed, and other important issues.
Roksolana, I’m really glad to see you and to welcome you to the studio. So tell me—what’s going on with the budget? Is it all bad? Because this week amendments to the 2025 budget law were passed. And I’ve heard everything—from claims that this law isn’t even worth the paper it’s printed on, that the budget is “garbage” (that’s a direct quote), to views that it’s a very important law designed to support the security and defense sector. So what’s the reality?
Non-military expenditures: what’s in the new law
ROKSOLANA:
The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. This is indeed a draft law focused mainly on non-military expenditures, because the large defense budget was passed unanimously and very quickly back on July 31. That’s a separate story. The bill we adopted this week, №13439-3, initially included additional spending for defense needs. But at some point we realized it was blocked by more than 1,300 amendments, and none of the parliamentary factions was willing to compromise on their positions in order to move the bill forward.
So, right before a plenary session, the Conciliation Council decided to draft a new budget bill. It was done in extreme circumstances and, honestly, a bit historically—because less than 24 hours passed between the decision to draft a new law and the President’s signature. And this wasn’t a one-line law—it contained amendments to the budget, several pages of text, and a massive Annex 3 with expenditure reallocations. I’m very proud of the Budget Committee Secretariat for making that possible.
VICTOR:
It has to be said—they’re really impressive.
ROKSOLANA:
I still remember that evening when we were drafting the defense budget law: there was a missile and drone attack underway. We were sitting in the Budget Committee office on Bankova Street, working under the sound of air defense. In the end, we passed the defense amendments, but the urgent adjustments needed in the social and humanitarian sectors remained unaddressed. And the bill we finally passed on August 19 was about those non-military priorities—although the government had originally registered them together with defense provisions in a single draft. Given the political necessity of approving the defense budget as quickly as possible, we had to split them. But that doesn’t mean the amendments passed this week were unimportant. On the contrary, there were many areas that urgently needed funding.
VICTOR:
Can you name the key ones—why this matters?
ROKSOLANA:
For example, there are defense-related expenditures, though not in the way the State Treasury officially classifies “security and defense sector” spending. e allocated ₴4.3 billion (about $110 million) to the Ministry of Digital Transformation for defense programs. One of these programs involves procuring specialized equipment, drones, and devices, modifying them per military requests, and testing them in combat conditions. Essentially, anything the Ministry of Defense cannot procure and account for quickly because of bureaucratic specifications—MinDigital steps in to handle. We also allocated ₴2.8 billion to the Ministry for the Brave1 project, which provides grants for the development of defense technology production.
VICTOR:
So this is basically innovative financing and testing directly in real combat conditions?
ROKSOLANA:
Broadly speaking, yes. We have the Innovation Development Fund, which was first created under the Ministry of Finance during Prime Minister Hroisman’s government. Today it’s managed by the Ministry of Digital Transformation, and since the full-scale invasion, most of its grants go to defense manufacturing rather than civilian innovation.
VICTOR:
Because that’s what the country needs right now.
ROKSOLANA:
Exactly. And it’s not just startups—these can also be established or fairly developed manufacturers working on technologies or equipment for the military. In addition, we allocated ₴3.2 billion to procure medicines for Ukrainians with cancer and rare diseases—such as hemophilia, achondroplasia, and others—covered by the state. I’ve already had to learn all these names. We also allocated over ₴1 billion in extra funding to support veterans and their families.
VICTOR:
Is that grant funding? Or project-based?
ROKSOLANA:
Which one do you mean?
VICTOR:
That extra billion for veterans.
ROKSOLANA:
No, that’s a program for monetary assistance and insurance compensation. We recently passed a law on this. And of course, we’re also replenishing the reserve fund, from which we can direct ₴8 billion to support Ukrzaliznytsia, which everyone is talking about today.
Why is Kyiv losing money?
VICTOR:
In short, money was taken from Kyiv and given to Ukrzaliznytsia. Very often I hear and read comparisons like: “They took it from Kyiv and handed it to Akhmetov.” Is there any truth to this? And does Ukrzaliznytsia actually need this money, given the massive wartime damage it has suffered?
ROKSOLANA:
Ukrzaliznytsia definitely needs the money. Its passenger services have always been loss-making—unlike freight services. There’s a separate debate about freight tariffs, and many industrial groups with significant media resources are pushing their positions on this issue. But the main reasons Ukrzaliznytsia asks for state budget support are, first, passenger transport—because they do not raise ticket prices for people—and second, reconstruction after Russian missile and drone strikes. If you open Facebook and read posts by Oleksandr Pertsovskyi, you’ll see that almost daily he reports on damage: a station hit in one region, a train shelled in another, or tracks destroyed.
VICTOR:
What I dislike are these manipulative claims that “₴8 billion was taken from Kyiv,” that this is the “end of decentralization,” or that “election campaigning has begun.” I understand that the situation is more complex. First, Kyiv has an enormous budget. Second, there’s another key issue at play. I’d like you to explain it—whether this really relates to the city’s governance or whether it’s the result of broader national decisions, like the taxation of banks.
ROKSOLANA:
Well, you’re not being very subtle in steering me toward that answer.
VICTOR:
I came prepared.
ROKSOLANA:
Yes, this is about the corporate income tax on banks. For 2024–2025, banks paid an increased profit tax under a decision of the Verkhovna Rada. That tax is divided into two parts: 90% goes to the state budget, and 10% to local budgets. But since most banks are registered in Kyiv, the city’s budget received almost all of that extra profit tax revenue. You can see it clearly in the figures: previously, Kyiv’s budget would receive around ₴400 million over half a year from bank profit tax. But in 2025, over the same period, that figure jumped to about ₴5 billion—and it was similar in 2024. Therefore, a one-time decision was made to redirect these funds to the state’s general budget and allocate them to the reserve fund. From there, they can be used to support Ukrzaliznytsia, or, if another urgent need arises, the government can use them for unforeseen expenditures. But speaking about Kyiv’s budget more broadly—I think they’re doing very well. As of August 1, the city had ₴33.8 billion in cash reserves. On January 1, that figure was ₴15.9 billion. So the balance more than doubled. I believe from those reserves they can find money to cover the needs of Kyiv residents—those same needs that people now write about on Facebook, claiming they’ll go unmet.
VICTOR:
I fully agree with you. That’s why I say these narratives are manipulative, and we need to speak about them objectively. The source of these funds wasn’t the city’s own performance. It was the government’s decision that led to Kyiv receiving more money. The same logic applies as with the military personal income tax.
ROKSOLANA:
Exactly.
“I always try to politicize the budget as little as possible”
VICTOR:
I want to return to the first question. The 2025 budget—is it garbage or not garbage? I love working with transcripts, and I want to cite a short quote: “Other words come to mind, but in the parliament chamber it’s probably best not to say them. This was garbage.” That was about the 2025 budget. “It wasn’t even worth the paper it was printed on. But you voted for it.” Aren’t you ashamed?
ROKSOLANA:
No. Who said that?
VICTOR:
A member of parliament, number one on the party list. I collect quotes like this and then give them to my students so we can discuss different aspects of the budget process and understand that the budget is politics. And that your public position depends on where you sit—on one side or the other.
ROKSOLANA:
I always try to politicize the budget as little as possible. I never go around saying why it’s good or why it’s bad. I speak concretely, on the facts.
VICTOR:
And for that, you have my thanks. It’s always interesting to hear aspects from your speeches or social media posts—you know it’s fact-checked. For several years now, the government has been submitting amendments to the budget. Most likely, next year the same story will repeat. Why? Because from the start, expenditures for military salaries are planned based on available resources. Then, when money arrives, those numbers are increased. Wouldn’t it be better if the Ministry of Finance, the government, and especially the Prime Minister—since he’s the public face—just said this upfront? For example: “Look, here’s the situation. We’re planning salaries for a certain period. But by mid-year, we’ll revise the numbers.” Would that be politically risky?
ROKSOLANA:
I don’t think it would be politically risky. But war is a field of great uncertainty. Our budget—and all these enormous defense expenditures—depend on how long active combat continues at its current intensity. When we’re planning next year’s budget in October, we can’t look into the future and say whether heavy fighting will last six months or the whole year. I’m not even talking about what we all hope for—that the war ends and a just peace comes. I don’t know what tomorrow will bring. To predict eight months ahead is just as difficult. That’s why the conversation doesn’t go in that direction. Beyond that, it’s also hard for us to forecast the international situation. For example, this year we had to amend the budget primarily because of insufficient weapons and ammunition deliveries from international partners in the first half of 2025. Meanwhile, the needs of soldiers on the front line don’t decrease. And so the government is forced to reallocate money away from payroll—literally, military salaries…
VICTOR:
Within the ministry, right? So they don’t need to go to parliament for that.
ROKSOLANA:
Exactly. They redirect money toward weapons contracts and ammunition purchases that will only be delivered months later—but advance payments are required early in the year. As a result, we get shortfalls in payroll for military personnel. Then parliament steps in to fix it by amending the state budget. I don’t see this as a tragedy or a problem, nor do I think the government or the Ministry of Finance should be crucified for having to amend the budget. It’s a normal process. Parliament and government are responding promptly to the needs of service members—and we will continue to do so in the future.
International Support: How Much Money Has Ukraine Received in 2025?
VICTOR:
So what about international financing?
ROKSOLANA:
Our need for international financing this year is $38.4 billion. That figure hasn’t changed since the budget was adopted, and at this point, our financing commitments fully cover it. As of August 22, a little over $26 billion had actually been transferred into the general fund of the state budget.
VICTOR:
That includes the extra €4 billion, right?
ROKSOLANA:
Yes, that includes the additional €4 billion—the so-called ERA loans. People often call this the “$50 billion package from the G7 countries,” but in the official documents, they are ERA loans. Of this, $17.8 billion went into the general fund, and just over $2 billion went into the special fund from the United Kingdom, earmarked for weapons procurement. These are, so far, the only funds provided by international partners that can be used directly for defense. And even then, they can be used solely for arms purchases, because they are placed under a specific defense program in the special fund. I’m sure your students know the difference between the general and special funds.
VICTOR:
Yes, that’s one of the first lectures—we cover the basics there.
ROKSOLANA:
And it’s important to emphasize: the ERA loans also include the EU’s macro-financial assistance. But separately, we account for the funds the EU provides under the Ukraine Facility, in exchange for reforms under Ukraine’s reform plan. That amounts to $7.1 billion, though the exact figure may vary depending on which exchange rate you use.
VICTOR:
Yes, but we were supposed to get more. So here’s my question—not to you, but to the government: Who’s responsible for the fact that we didn’t get just over $1 billion we were supposed to? We were expecting it but didn’t receive it. I hope that once we meet those reform indicators, we’ll still get the money later?
ROKSOLANA:
We will definitely receive it. Each indicator has a fixed value, and funds are transferred to the budget in the quarter when the indicator is fulfilled. So, if we didn’t meet it in the first quarter, we didn’t get the money then—but if we meet it in the third quarter, we’ll receive it after that. So this isn’t a catastrophe. In fact, I can tell you that the unmet indicator wasn’t even within the government’s or parliament’s direct responsibility. It wasn’t a law or a resolution.
VICTOR:
It was political responsibility. The adoption of two laws—we were supposed to pass them, but didn’t.
ROKSOLANA:
Yes, yesterday two Ukraine Facility laws failed in parliament. But we’ll vote again. Right now, there is no problem with international financing coming in.
VICTOR:
So, does that mean we don’t have to comply?
ROKSOLANA:
No, I’m not saying that. What I mean is that the failure to pass those laws is not …
VICTOR:
… not as painful as it would be if the money simply weren’t there.
ROKSOLANA:
Exactly. It’s not something an ordinary person receiving payments from the budget, or businesses receiving grants, would feel. Because right now, we do have the funds to finance everything at the proper level. By the way, this temporary over-financing we’ve seen in 2025—which won’t be the case in 2026 (and we can discuss that separately)—is actually one reason why IMF tranches have been smaller recently. If you noticed, the last two tranches were $500 million and $400 million. The IMF sees that we don’t have a liquidity problem when it comes to non-defense spending. Defense spending, of course, is a completely different story.
VICTOR:
And that’s primarily our own money—funds raised through taxes, borrowing, and so on.
ROKSOLANA:
Correct. Defense is financed exclusively from domestic resources. That includes tax and customs revenues, dividends, a share of the National Bank of Ukraine’s net profit, and domestic borrowing. At the moment, our defense expenditures exceed our domestic resources without government bonds. So we …
VICTOR:
… borrow in order to cover internal defense needs?
ROKSOLANA:
Yes, we borrow in order to cover defense expenditures.
Will There Be Enough Money for Salaries and Pensions Until the End of the Year?
VICTOR:
We should probably also thank businesses and the State Tax Service for solid tax administration. We recently recorded a podcast with the head of the State Tax Service, and she mentioned how revenue plans are being consistently over-fulfilled. We asked Lesia: How are you achieving this, what’s the secret? It was an interesting episode, so colleagues, please do watch and comment. Now, the last budget question. It’s clear that the new budget process is starting. This year, you’ve already increased budget expenditures by more than ₴400 billion. So tell me: what’s the situation right now as we head into autumn? Will people have the money for salaries? And how are we preparing for winter, if you know?
ROKSOLANA:
Well, let me put it this way: expenditures will be carried out to the extent that resources are available—you understand that. But if we’re talking about payments people are supposed to receive from the state by the end of the year—salaries, pensions, social benefits—they will be paid. That’s always the priority. The government always finds the money for that. Even in the most difficult times—for example, in 2022, when the full-scale invasion began—there was not a single month when pensions were delayed. It’s true that for a few months salaries weren’t paid to the Verkhovna Rada itself, but we got through that. For ordinary people, the government always ensures payments are made on time.
And there’s good news here. If you look at budget revenues—what we projected at the beginning of the year in January compared to actual execution—after seven months, revenues to the general fund are up 8.3% compared to plan. And that’s without counting international assistance. Because you know that grants from the EU are also recorded as revenues under budget methodology. But this ₴1.25 trillion in revenues over seven months is purely domestic—without grants.
VICTOR:
Which is why I want to mention again: our previous podcast was with the Head of the State Tax Service—I recommend you listen and, by the way, subscribe.
ROKSOLANA:
And will you advertise the next podcasts with me too?
VICTOR:
Of course. I always try to create cross-links: you hook people with one interesting story, and then they move to another episode. That’s why I referred back to the earlier podcast. Now—the Accounting Chamber.
“This Is My Cross to Bear”: Why the Competition for the Accounting Chamber Is Stalled
ROKSOLANA:
Yes.
VICTOR:
It’s both a burden and a hope.
ROKSOLANA:
It’s my cross to bear.
VICTOR:
It’s your cross. I’d like to start with the law. You had an interesting approach to drafting the new law. Can you tell us more about it?
ROKSOLANA:
I’ve been in parliament since 2019. This wasn’t my first law, but it was probably the one I was most involved in, because we literally wrote it line by line ourselves. Before that, I led a long working group to prepare the draft law—you were also invited to join—and we discussed the key blocks and components that had to be reflected in the text. After that came the most exhausting part. Once adoption of this law became a structural benchmark for the International Monetary Fund, I started very active communication with the IMF mission in Ukraine. Their experts read every provision, gave recommendations, and assessed whether each clause met the commitments we made under the IMF memorandum. We went over the details many, many times. Only after that was the bill ready for the floor.
VICTOR:
And you started by engaging many people who actually understand what the Accounting Chamber is, to diagnose the problems.
ROKSOLANA:
Absolutely.
VICTOR:
Then the problems were systematized into 24 main blocks. And then a working group was formed that included civil society representatives (five people), representatives from the EU and SIGMA, and members of parliament. That group went through each structured block to find the best solutions.
ROKSOLANA:
Exactly. Because I didn’t want this law to be only about the appointment procedure for new members of the Accounting Chamber. If you recall, the reform of the Accounting Chamber in this political cycle began with a letter from G7 ambassadors insisting on transparent, open competitions for new members. That’s in the law, of course. But I wanted the law to go further—if parliament is going to spend time adopting a bill, it should include as many provisions as possible to improve the institution’s work. Changing leadership alone doesn’t solve all problems. So we debated a lot. And what we discussed in the working group ended up in the IMF memorandum—and later in the law itself.
For example, we agreed that the Accounting Chamber should be able to audit local budgets and extra-budgetary funds, such as the Pension Fund. We also said the Chamber itself should be audited—it shouldn’t be a “state within a state,” but should comply with international INTOSAI standards. And we insisted parliament must be strongly engaged in the Chamber’s work—so we required parliamentary committees to review its reports.
VICTOR:
Thank you for that—it’s crucial for them. It’s crucial for the Accounting Chamber to present its work in parliament. Because reading some MPs’ speeches, you realize they know the Chamber only by name.
ROKSOLANA:
True. And for the Chamber, it’s also important to get feedback. Many MPs on relevant committees have worked in these areas longer than some members of the Chamber have held their posts. Six years on a specific topic gives you expertise—not just a political stance.
VICTOR:
I completely agree. And honestly, I pushed for this—because I had seen the Chamber’s work from the inside. Some members were even afraid to present their reports in parliament, worried they might be asked questions and exposed for writing nonsense. They were afraid to show their numbers.
ROKSOLANA:
Exactly. And on the other hand, the managers of budget funds audited by the Chamber should have the right to publicly defend themselves if the Chamber is wrong. A parliamentary committee reviewing the report is the perfect platform for that.
VICTOR:
I agree completely. I also liked when the head of a subcommittee would review Chamber reports in the budget subcommittee—it was extremely effective and a great practice before the war. Back to the law. The law was passed. This week, a working group was supposed to be approved…
ROKSOLANA:
An expert advisory group that would handle the preliminary selection of candidates for the Accounting Chamber.
VICTOR:
Could you explain more clearly for our listeners and viewers—as well as for some MPs—what this group actually does? Because reading the transcripts of your session, I sometimes wondered whether MPs even understood what was being discussed. Some thought foreigners would literally “run” the Chamber. Can you explain their functions and competencies?
ROKSOLANA:
Let’s start here: we’re talking about the competition for new members of the Accounting Chamber. Right now, there are five members in place and six vacant seats. We need to appoint six new members through a transparent competition. The selection will be done by an expert advisory group of six people: three representatives from international organizations (two from the EU and one from the UK) and three representatives of the Ukrainian parliament. Since the Accounting Chamber performs audits on behalf of the Verkhovna Rada, it makes sense for parliament to nominate three people. But the international experts have a casting vote—if there’s a 3–3 split, the decision supported by the international experts prevails.
This group’s job is to conduct preliminary screening: at least two candidates per seat. Essentially, they filter out unsuitable applicants and ensure candidates meet legal requirements, speak English, understand what the Chamber does, know the difference between a performance audit and a compliance audit, and so on. And of course, candidates must be of good integrity—no questionable assets, declarations, or scandals. The advisory group sets its own selection methodology—we don’t interfere. But MPs and civil society can observe the process through mandatory live streams of interviews and tests, and media must also be granted access. Unfortunately, the vote in parliament this week to establish this expert group—the selection panel—failed.
VICTOR:
So those six people who are supposed to choose the candidates…
ROKSOLANA:
Not even six—three. The three international experts have already been nominated by the government, based on recommendations from international organizations and donor embassies. Their names are already in the resolution. Now parliament must elect three Ukrainian representatives by ranked vote, and then approve the resolution as a whole. It got 219 votes, if I’m not mistaken.
VICTOR:
You’re not mistaken.
ROKSOLANA:
Unfortunately. And I have a lot of questions for certain parties that didn’t vote. I understand why, for example, the Opposition Platform–For Life party wouldn’t vote.
VICTOR:
And I understand why, for example, Holos party didn’t vote.
ROKSOLANA:
They had reasons?
VICTOR:
Yes, absolutely. They didn’t support Oleksandra — and honestly, of all the people on the list, she was the strongest. She understands not only public finance but also the functioning of the state more broadly. She’s one of the strongest macroeconomists in Ukraine.
ROKSOLANA:
Don’t you have a podcast with her already—to link here?
VICTOR:
I do! In fact, last season—episode 10—we talked about macroeconomics. A very interesting and very strong episode.
“We have MP who vote by the principle: the worse it is for the government, the better for us”
ROKSOLANA:
I know Oleksandra, and I respect her immensely. I think it would be great if she were on this advisory group of experts. That’s a political decision. But I still don’t accept it as a reason to derail the entire reform or postpone it indefinitely. I understand that, as a single-party majority, we bear responsibility for everything in the country. But I don’t understand why some factions in parliament vote out of spite. I’m not speaking specifically about the Holos party, but we do have people who vote by the principle: the worse it is for the government, the better for us. And that’s just not right.
VICTOR:
So what are your expectations? Will you be able to pass the resolution on this commission in September to fully launch the competition?
ROKSOLANA:
I will. I’ve had laws that passed on the fourth try—but they passed.
VICTOR:
You’re very systematic…
ROKSOLANA:
I won’t stop until it’s voted through. Moreover, as the author of the Accounting Chamber law, I designed the procedure to keep returning until it passes. After each failed vote, it goes back to the stage where factions submit their nominees.
VICTOR:
If it fails—you send a letter for the next round of nominations…
ROKSOLANA:
This vote can never be “finally” failed. That’s a major advantage of this law. The same day—August 19—I sent letters to the factions asking them to submit new candidates, and I’ll request that it be put back on the agenda for a vote in the week starting September 2. There may be formal reasons for factions to block a vote as of September 2 (the committee’s decision won’t be ten days old), but we’ll see whether there’s genuine will to reform.
What Roksolana Pidlasa Is Reading: Book Recommendations
VICTOR:
Last thing—books. I told you that when you posted your reading list last year, my colleagues at the Center saw it and said, “We already love her for what she reads.” How many books did you read last year? How many this year? What are you reading now—and do you even have time, given the pace?
ROKSOLANA:
Since registering the budget amendments, I stopped reading—I literally don’t have time. I’m really sorry about that. I’m afraid to open Goodreads—you know Goodreads? It’s already telling me I’m way behind my plan. That scares me, but I hope now that we’ve voted on the budget, I’ll manage to read a bit before the new draft is submitted to parliament. In general, I like detective fiction—the thing we discussed with your colleagues. I really love Robert Galbraith (J. K. Rowling’s pen name for her adult novels), especially the Cormoran Strike series. I also like Stephen King—not all of it; not the very paranormal stuff, but a bit of paranormal, yes.
VICTOR:
What are you reading now?
ROKSOLANA:
Nothing at the moment. We voted on the budget two days ago—I’m still recovering.
VICTOR:
What was the last book you read and the one you liked most this year—and why?
ROKSOLANA:
Good thing I have Goodreads—everything’s logged. The last book I read was by the Argentine writer Claudia Piñeiro. There’s a new publisher that translates from Spanish—I think they’re translating her too. The book is Elena Knows. To be honest, I didn’t like it that much.
VICTOR:
You read it in English?
ROKSOLANA:
It was originally written in Spanish, but I read it in English. I gave it only two out of five stars. It’s a novella about how hard it is when loved ones suffer from incurable illnesses and need constant care. It’s fiction, but very piercing. Why two stars? I had questions about the structure and the writing. I liked the message, but I think it should have been constructed differently. Then again, I’m not the author—who am I to say?
The book I liked most this year is definitely Pavlo Belianskyi’s “Bytys, ne mozhna vidstupyty” [To Fight, Not to Retreat]. I even wrote a review. It’s not a novel, but it reads like one—it’s so cohesive that it feels like fiction.
Another book that really moved me was Olena Pshenyčna’s “Tam, de zakhodyt sontse” [Where the Sun Sets]. It’s very warm. At first it scared me—it’s about a nursing home: how people live there, their dreams, thoughts, life stories, relationships. Kind of like a Ukrainian Thursday Murder Club. Though I don’t actually like The Thursday Murder Club—it’s just a popular detective; I think a TV series with Helen Mirren is coming soon. But the Ukrainian book Where the Sun Sets is much better because it’s embedded in the Ukrainian context, and it’s very funny. I recommend it.
VICTOR:
On that warm note—and with your reading recommendations—I want to thank you for your time, for the conversation, and for sharing your expertise and the inside story with us. I also want to thank our defenders for making it possible for us to breathe freely in our country.
ROKSOLANA:
I fully agree—and I join you in that gratitude.
VICTOR:
And this podcast wouldn’t be possible without the support of the International Renaissance Foundation, with whom we’re producing a series of Budget Talks episodes. Thank you to them as well.
ROKSOLANA:
Thank you. Invite me again. We’re “sorosyata” after all—where else would we go if not to a podcast supported by the Renaissance Foundation?
This text has been translated and adapted from the original Ukrainian version with the assistance of artificial intelligence. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and clarity, some nuances may differ from the original.