A Ukrainian manufacturer considering a new production line faces a question that rarely appears in an ordinary feasibility study: what happens if the equipment is destroyed before the investment has paid for itself? The same question follows a warehouse expansion, a logistics operation or an agricultural processing facility. Even a commercially viable project can struggle to attract financing if investors and lenders face the risk of losing the assets in a Russian attack.
War-risk protection is therefore an important part of the investment discussion. In September 2026, Ukraine announced another expansion of its business compensation and insurance premium support programme. International institutions have also introduced instruments intended to bring insurers and investors back into the market. Together, these developments offer businesses more options. Their usefulness, however, depends on understanding precisely what each instrument protects and how it fits a particular project.
What the September changes introduce
On 17 September, the Government announced that the annual ceiling for partial reimbursement of war-risk insurance premiums would rise from UAH 3 million to UAH 5 million per business, across all contracts. The mechanism was also extended to leased property. For businesses operating from rented premises, this creates a potentially relevant avenue of support, subject to the programme’s contractual and eligibility requirements.
The property compensation component was broadened separately. Kyiv and Kyiv region were added to the high-risk territories. Eligible assets were expanded to include specified fuel assets and fuel transport or storage vehicles, agricultural machinery, and trucks and trailers above 7.5 tonnes. The changes also address certain movable assets travelling through high-risk territories and simplify documentation. These are adjustments to an existing programme launched in January 2026, rather than the introduction of universal insurance for every investment.
Businesses planning an expansion may now have access to support that was previously unavailable to them. An asset or operating arrangement previously outside the programme may now merit another eligibility check. Nevertheless, a higher reimbursement ceiling says little on its own about the amount of loss covered by an insurance contract. That must be established separately with the insurer.
Three instruments, three different functions
The language surrounding war-risk support can obscure an essential distinction. Insurance, reimbursement of insurance premiums and direct compensation for damaged property perform different functions. Treating them as interchangeable can lead a business to overestimate its protection or include support in a financial model that it may never receive.
An insurance policy is a contract under which an insurer agrees to pay for specified losses, within agreed limits and subject to exclusions. Before taking out a policy, a business should check which assets and events it covers, how much of any loss it would have to bear itself, and which documents it would need to submit a claim. The label “war-risk insurance” is only the starting point for that examination.
Premium compensation reduces the cost of buying eligible insurance. It does not increase the policy’s payout limit or change its exclusions. Direct property compensation follows a separate state programme, with its own participation and claims requirements. The Export Credit Agency administers these mechanisms and publishes application guidance. Businesses should check the current rules rather than assume that owning damaged property automatically creates an entitlement to payment.
Consider a hypothetical company insuring machinery worth EUR 2 million. A subsidy towards the premium may make the policy more affordable, but the company still needs to know whether the contract covers the full machinery value or a much smaller maximum loss. It also needs to establish whether lost production income is covered. Replacing equipment and surviving the interruption are two different financial challenges.
International instruments are widening the options
One constraint on domestic insurance is the capacity to absorb substantial losses. Insurers can transfer part of their exposure to reinsurers, but the EBRD reports that international reinsurers largely withdrew after the full-scale invasion. This restricted the protection Ukrainian insurers could offer. International support is consequently addressing the insurance market itself, as well as individual investment projects.
The EBRD and Aon launched the Ukraine Recovery and Reconstruction Guarantee Facility with an EBRD guarantee of up to EUR 110 million. The facility supports reinsurance for specified war-related losses. In 2025, the EBRD reported that INGO, Colonnade and UNIQA had begun offering backed policies for inland cargo, motor own damage and railway rolling stock through reinsurance arrangements with MS Amlin. These initial categories are especially relevant to the movement of goods and transport assets. They should not be interpreted as blanket cover for factories or every type of infrastructure.
Investment insurance is another route. Ukraine’s Export Credit Agency offers direct investment protection against war and political risks, linked to eligible processing and export development. Its published product requirements cover the investment’s purpose, location and other conditions, and allow resident and non-resident investors. A business seeking ordinary property insurance and an investor seeking protection for a capital contribution may therefore need different products, even when both are concerned about the same conflict.
At the international level, MIGA’s Support for Ukraine’s Reconstruction and Economy Trust Fund supports political risk guarantees where commercial capacity is constrained. It uses donor resources alongside MIGA’s guarantee capacity to facilitate investment protection. Such instruments can be relevant to qualifying investments, but access depends on the institution’s requirements and project assessment. Their existence does not mean every Ukrainian business can obtain the same coverage on the same terms.
A broader mechanism is still taking shape
The Government, the National Bank, the Export Credit Agency and business representatives are also discussing how to expand war-risk protection beyond the existing programmes. According to the European Business Association, the proposed approach would involve the state assuming some risks that the private market cannot currently absorb, while strengthening cooperation with international reinsurers. Coverage of up to USD 10 million and an indicative premium of around 2% have been discussed as possible parameters.
Those figures remain discussion parameters, rather than a generally available offer. This distinction matters for investment planning: a company cannot responsibly base a financing decision on a proposed product whose eligibility, exclusions, funding and claims arrangements are still being developed. Announcements can indicate policy direction, but a project needs protection that can actually be contracted.
The investment significance of a broader mechanism would depend on its design. Affordable premiums could help businesses purchase protection, while adequate limits could make it useful for larger assets. Predictable claims handling would matter just as much. A company that loses its production facility needs clarity about when funds might arrive, because debt service, wages and other obligations can continue while operations are suspended.