How much have America, Britain and the rest paid Ukraine in aid since the Russian invasion? And do they have any hope of getting money back in return?
These are big questions, and they’re likely to dominate much of the discussion in the coming months as Donald Trump pressurises his Ukrainian counterparts for a deal on ending the war. So let’s go through some of the answers.
First off, the question of who has given the most money to Ukraine rather depends on what you’re counting.
If you’re looking solely at the amount of military support extended since 2022, the US has provided €64bn, compared with €62bn from European nations (including the UK).
But now include other types of support, such as humanitarian and financial assistance, and European support exceeds American (€132bn in total, compared with €114bn from the US).
Divide Europe into its constituent nations, on the other hand, and none of them individually comes anywhere close to the US quantity of aid.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
That being said, simple cash numbers aren’t an especially good measure of a country’s ability to pay.
Look at US support as a percentage of gross domestic product and it comes to 0.5% of GDP. That’s almost precisely the same as the aid from the UK.
Looked at through this prism, it’s other countries which are clearly the most generous: Denmark, Estonia and much of the Baltics providing around 2% of their GDP – a far bigger amount versus their ability to finance it.
Still, compare the aid this time around with previous amounts spent in other conflicts and they are nowhere close.
Lend-Lease during WWII, aid during the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and even the first Gulf War, involved significantly bigger outlays than currently being spent on Ukraine.
That goes not just for the US but also for the UK, Germany and Japan, all of which provided more aid to the Kuwaitis and other affected nations during the first Gulf War.
Even so, it’s clear that the US and others have put significant resources towards Ukraine.
President Trump has been talking recently about recouping $500bn from Ukraine in the form of revenues from mining rare earth metals.
This is, on the face of it, slightly odd. Rare earth metals represent an obscure corner of the periodic table and play a small if important role in electronics and military manufacturing.
The entire market is small – making it essentially implausible that, even if Ukraine suddenly produced the majority of the world’s supply, the president could expect that amount of revenue back in return.
More to the point, while there are a couple of rare earth deposits in Ukraine, they have languished, unexploited, for years. They are so expensive to mine no-one has worked out how to extract the elements and make a profit at the same time.
And even if you presumed they could do, Ukraine would still be a relative minnow in global rare earths production.
Assuming, as one probably should, that Donald Trump didn’t just mean rare earths, but was talking more broadly about “critical minerals” (the two are different things, but let’s not get too pedantic here), there are also one or two other promising mine sites in the country.
There is an old, shuttered alumina plant seized from Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. There is a large lithium resource which could, if all went well, be the single biggest lithium mine in Europe.
Yet even taking this into account, Ukraine would still be a relatively small player in global lithium. Not nothing – but not world changing either. Certainly not enough to generate the hundreds of billions of dollars Mr Trump is seeking.
Then again, Ukraine has other resources at its disposal too: vast seams of coal in the Donbas, large iron ore reserves in the south of the country.
Both of these are in or close to Russian occupied areas – which might, from the Ukrainians’ perspective, actually be the point. Old fashioned as this stuff is, it does actually generate significant revenue. It might be Donald Trump’s best hope for some payback.
Shares in UK banks have fallen sharply on the back of a report which urges the chancellor to place their profits in her sights at the coming budget.
As Rachel Reeves stares down a growing deficit – estimated at between £20bn-£40bn heading into the autumn – the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said there was an opportunity for a windfall by closing a loophole.
It recommended a new levy on the interest UK lenders receive from the Bank of England, amounting to £22bn a year, on reserves held as a result of the Bank’s historic quantitative easing, or bond-buying, programme.
It was first introduced at the height of the financial crisis, in 2009.
The left-leaning think-tank said the money received by banks amounted to a subsidy and suggested £8bn could be taken from them annually to pay for public services.
It argued that the loss-making scheme – a consequence of rising interest rates since 2021 – had left taxpayers footing the bill unfairly as the Treasury has to cover any loss.
More on Rachel Reeves
Related Topics:
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:28
Why taxes might go up
The Bank recently estimated the total hit would amount to £115bn over the course of its lifetime.
The publication of the report coincided with a story in the Financial Times which spoke of growing fears within the banking sector that it was firmly in the chancellor’s sights.
Her first budget, in late October last year, put businesses on the hook for the bulk of its tax-raising measures.
Ms Reeves is under pressure to find more money from somewhere as she has ruled out breaking her own fiscal rules to help secure the cash she needs through heightened borrowing.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
Other measures understood to be under consideration include a wealth tax, new property tax and a shake-up that could lead to a replacement for council tax.
Analysts at Exane told clients in a note: “In the last couple of years, the chancellor has been protective of the banks and has avoided raising taxes.
“However, public finances may require additional cash and pressures for a bank tax from within the Labour party seem to be rising,” it concluded.
The investor flight saw shares in Lloyds and NatWest plunge by more than 5%. Those for Barclays were more than 4% lower at one stage.
A spokesperson for the Treasury said the best way to strengthen public finances was to speed up economic growth.
“Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms,” they added.
The man dubbed “Britain’s most hated boss” for his controversial policy of sacking hundreds of seafarers and replacing them with cheaper agency staff is to quit.
Sky News can exclusively reveal that Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, is leaving the company.
Sources said he had decided to resign for personal reasons.
Mr Hebblethwaite joined the ranks of Britain’s most notorious corporate figures in 2022 when P&O Ferries – a subsidiary of the giant Dubai-based ports operator DP World – said it was sacking 800 staff with immediate effect – some of whom learned their fate via a video message.
The policy, which Mr Hebblethwaite defended to MPs during subsequent select committee hearings, erupted into a national scandal, prompting changes in the law to give workers greater protection.
Under the new legislation, the government plans to tighten collective redundancy requirements for operators of foreign vessels.
More from Money
In a statement issued in response to a request from Sky News, a P&O Ferries spokesperson said: “Peter Hebblethwaite has communicated his intention to resign from his position as chief executive officer to dedicate more time to family matters.
Image: Peter Hebblethwaite gives evidence to a committee of MPs in 2022. Pic: PA
“P&O Ferries extends its gratitude to Peter Hebblethwaite for his contributions as CEO over the past four years.
“During his tenure the company navigated the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, initiated a path towards financial stability, and introduced the world’s first large double-ended hybrid ferries on the Dover-Calais route, thereby enhancing sustainability.
“We extend our best wishes to him for his future endeavours.”
A source close to the company said it anticipated making an announcement on Mr Hebblethwaite’s successor in the near term.
A former executive at J Sainsbury, Greene King and Alliance Unichem, Mr Hebblethwaite joined P&O Ferries in 2019, before taking over as chief executive in November 2021.
Insiders claimed on Friday that he had “transformed” the business following the bitter blows dealt to its finances by the COVID-19 pandemic and – to some degree – by the impact of Britain’s exit from the European Union.
Image: A union protest is shown at the height of the mass sackings row in 2022
P&O Ferries carries 4.5 million passengers annually on routes between the UK and continental European ports including Calais and Rotterdam.
It also operates a route between Northern Ireland and Scotland, and is a major freight carrier.
The company’s losses soared during the pandemic, with DP World – its sole shareholder – supporting it through hundreds of millions of pounds in loans.
Its most recent accounts, which were significantly delayed, showed a significant reduction in losses in 2023 to just over £90m.
The reduction from the previous year’s figure of almost £250m was partly attributed to cost reduction exercises.
The accounts also showed that Mr Hebblethwaite received a pay package of £683,000, including a bonus of £183,000.
“I reflected on accepting that payment, but ultimately I did decide to accept it,” he told MPs.
“I do recognise it is not a decision that everybody would have made.”
The row over his pay was especially acute because of his admission that P&O Ferries’ lowest-paid seafarers received hourly pay of just £4.87.
Mr Hebblethwaite had argued since the mass sackings of 2022 that the company would have gone bust without the drastic cost-cutting that it entailed.
The company insisted at the time that those affected by the redundancies had been offered “enhanced” packages to leave.
Last October, the then transport secretary, Louise Haigh, said: “The mass sacking by P&O Ferries was a national scandal which can never be allowed to happen again,” adding that measures to protect seafarers from “rogue employers” would prevent a repetition.
“This issue has been ignored for over 2 years, but this new government is moving fast and bringing forward measures within 100 days,” Ms Haigh added.
“We are closing the legal loophole that P&O Ferries exploited when they sacked almost 800 dedicated seafarers and replaced them with low-paid agency workers and we are requiring operators to pay the equivalent of National Minimum Wage in UK waters.
“Make no mistake – this is good for workers and good for business.”
The minister’s description of P&O Ferries as “rogue”, and suggestion that consumers should boycott the company, sparked a row which threatened to overshadow the government’s International Investment Summit last October.
Sky News’s business and economics correspondent, Paul Kelso, revealed that DP World had withdrawn from participating in the event, and paused a £1bn investment announcement.
The company relented after Sir Keir Starmer publicly distanced the government from Ms Haigh’s characterisation of DP World.
Donald Trump has cancelled a loophole from today that had allowed consumers and businesses to be spared duties for sending low-value goods to the United States.
The so-called de minimis exemption had applied across the world before Trump 2.0 but the president has taken action – and the UK may soon follow suit – as part of his trade war.
The relief had allowed goods worth less than $800 (£595) to enter the US duty-free since 2016.
But now, low-cost packages face the same tariff rate as other, more expensive, goods.
The reasons for the latest bout of protectionism are numerous and the ramifications are country and purpose specific.
What is changing?
It was no accident that China was the first destination to be slapped with this rule change.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
The duty exemption on low-value Chinese goods was ended in May as US retailers, in fact those across the Western world, complained bitterly that they were being undercut by cheap clothing, accessories and household goods shipped by the likes of Shein and Temu.
From today, Mr Trump is expanding the end of the de minimis rule to the rest of the world.
Why is Trump doing this?
Image: Number of de minimis packages imported in to the US since 2018
The president is not acting purely to protect US businesses.
More duties mean more money for his tariff treasure chest, bolstering the goodies already pouring in from his base and reciprocal tariffs imposed on trading partners globally this year.
The Trump administration has also called out “deceptive shipping practices, illegal material and duty circumvention”.
It also believes many parcels claiming to contain low-value goods have been used to fuel the country’s supplies of fentanyl, with the importation of the illegal drug being used by the president as a reason for his wider trade war against allies including Canada.
How will it apply?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:35
New tariffs threaten fresh trade chaos
Under the new rules, only letters and personal gifts worth less than $100 (£74) will still be free of import duties.
Charges will depend on the tariff regime facing the country from where the goods are sent.
Fox example, a parcel containing products worth $600 would raise $180 in extra duties when sent from a country facing a 30% tariff rate.
It has sparked chaos in many countries, with postal services in places including Japan, Germany and Australia refusing to accept many items for delivery to the US until the practicalities of the new regime become clearer.
What about the UK?
All goods not meeting the £74 exemption criteria now face a 10% charge because that is the baseline tariff the US has slapped on imports from the UK.
We were spared, if you remember, higher reciprocal tariffs under the so-called “trade deal”.
How will the process work?
All shipping and delivery companies will be wading through the changes, with the big international operators such as DHL, FedEx and the like all promising to navigate the challenge.
Royal Mail said on Thursday that it would be the first international postal service to have a dedicated operation.
It said consumers could use its new postal delivery duties paid (PDDP) services both online and at Post Offices.
But it explained that business customers faced different restrictions to individuals.
Businesses would be charged a handling fee per parcel to cover additional costs and duties would be calculated based on where items were originally manufactured.
While business account customers could be handed an invoice for the duties, it explained that consumers would have to pay at the point of buying postage.
No customs declaration would be required, it concluded, for personal correspondence.
Is the US alone in doing this?
The answer is no, but it remains a fairly widespread relief globally.
The European Union, for example, removed de minimis breaks back in 2021, making all e-commerce imports to the bloc subject to VAT.
It is also now planning to introduce a fee of €2 on goods worth €150 or less to cover the costs of customs processing.
Should the UK do the same?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
9:00
July: The value of ‘de minimis’ imports into Britain
The UK has been under pressure for many years to follow suit and drop its own £135 duty-free threshold as retailers battle the cheap e-commerce competition from China we mentioned earlier.
A review was announced by the chancellor in April.
Sky News revealed in July how the total declared trade value of de minimis imports into the UK in the 2024-25 financial year was £5.9bn – a 53% increase on the previous 12-month period.
Any rise in revenue would be welcomed, not only by UK retailers, but by Rachel Reeves too as she looks to fill a renewed black hole in the public finances.