War-risk insurance and guarantees for Ukraine projects

Why cover comes first

MIGA, the World Bank Group's guarantee agency, puts it plainly: in the current war, most investors treat the availability of political risk insurance as a prerequisite, even when investing alongside a multilateral institution. The financing gap makes the point sharper still. The RDNA5 assessment puts the government's priority recovery and reconstruction programmes for 2026 at approximately USD 15.25 billion, of which only around 38 per cent is covered by the state budget and confirmed partner financing; that gap is for public and donor money to close. Private capital comes in on the wider ten-year need, which RDNA5 estimates at USD 587.7 billion and of which, if reforms are implemented, the private sector could cover up to 40 per cent. In our experience that capital moves into Ukraine only where its downside is insurable, which is why cover comes first.

Investment cover: MIGA and the SURE Trust Fund

MIGA has been one of very few providers of political risk insurance in Ukraine through the war, including war and civil disturbance cover alongside its expropriation and transfer-restriction cover. As of June 2026 it has issued USD 573 million in new guarantees since February 2022, with a further USD 32 million guarantee in preparation; counting tenor extensions, its overall new business volume for Ukraine stands at USD 920 million. The engine behind this is the Support for Ukraine's Reconstruction and Economy Trust Fund (SURE TF): donor contributions, currently approaching USD 150 million with a USD 300 million target, act as a first-loss layer which MIGA states can de-risk up to 75 per cent of guarantees issued to foreign investors, with MIGA carrying the rest on its balance sheet or passing it to reinsurers.

MIGA's deployment is phased. During active hostilities the focus is trade finance guarantees, political risk cover that lets international banking groups keep liquidity flowing to their Ukrainian subsidiaries, and selective real-sector projects, including relocations from the east of the country. Broader real-sector cover scales up as and where the situation stabilises. For an investor structuring an entry now, that phasing matters: what is available today is not the full product shelf, and eligibility turns on the project's sector, location and partners.

Trade and transit cover: the EBRD's reinsurance guarantee

The EBRD attacked the problem from a different angle: it left direct investor insurance to MIGA and went to the reason local cover disappeared, the withdrawal of international reinsurance. Under the Ukraine Recovery and Reconstruction Guarantee Facility, a EUR 110 million EBRD guarantee covers losses on defined war-related risks underwritten by Ukrainian insurers, allowing reinsurers to come back into the market. Specialty reinsurer MS Amlin joined at launch, with Ukrainian insurers INGO, Colonnade and UNIQA among the first local participants, and the first Ukrainian companies took out cover in 2025. The initial scope is inland cargo, motor vehicles and railway rolling stock; at full capacity the facility could support cover for up to EUR 1 billion of goods and vehicles in transit each year.

Demand has outrun supply: an EBRD spokesperson told Global Trade Review in August 2026 that the initial EUR 110 million guarantee was fully utilised within roughly nine months of the facility becoming operational in March 2025, with some EUR 360 million of goods and vehicle movements insured over that period; because capacity is released and reused as each short-term policy expires, the guarantee continues to support new policies, but local insurers still report a shortage of reinsurance capacity, and the EBRD is working with its international partners, notably the EU, to expand the facility and to widen the eligible assets, starting with logistics-adjacent activities.

The practical consequence: this cover is bought in Ukraine, from Ukrainian insurers, typically by the Ukrainian operating entity. It protects the logistics of a project, the goods moving to and from the site, and leaves the investment itself to MIGA. It sits alongside MIGA cover and answers a different risk.

Static property: buildings, plant and stock

For buildings, plant and stock in Ukraine the route is different again: property cover bought from a Ukrainian insurer whose war-risk book is reinsured with public backing. The US International Development Finance Corporation has provided such reinsurance, first, in 2024, through a USD 50 million facility arranged with Aon and, from 1 February 2026, through a USD 25 million facility for Kniazha Vienna Insurance Group that supports a portfolio of up to USD 100 million of war-risk policies for SMEs and private individuals, with eligibility, territorial limits and capacity set by the insurer (DFC's project summary describes the covered property and the SME focus). It protects the Ukrainian policyholder's assets; MIGA's cover protects the foreign investor's investment; a project usually needs both.

Export cover: the national agencies

For exporters, the relevant instrument is the home-country export credit agency, covering non-payment and political risk on export contracts and, in some products, bonds, and here the headline figure needs careful reading. The UK keeps a GBP 3.5 billion cover limit for Ukraine under a ministerial direction to remain open in the national interest, even though Ukraine transactions fall outside UKEF's normal credit risk standards. But the limit is not the same as available capacity: the Business Secretary told the Business and Trade Committee on 4 March 2025 that UKEF's underwriting of the financing for Thales's air-defence missile contract would account for approximately GBP 2.9 billion of the limit, almost all of the remaining capacity (the underwriting figure is UKEF's maximum liability, including interest over the life of the loan, on a GBP 1.6 billion contract).

A UKEF spokesperson told Global Trade Review in March 2025 that its Ukraine cover was, broadly speaking, fully utilised, with further support considered case by case and requiring the written consent of ministers and HM Treasury. UKEF's 2024–25 annual report records GBP 3.4 billion of the limit allocated at 31 March 2025, including forecast committed business, and the facility agreement for the loan, nearly GBP 1.7 billion, was signed on 10 July 2025. UKEF has financed reconstruction work, including bridges in the Kyiv region, and cover positions by market are published in UKEF's country cover policy; the binding constraint is capacity, and current headroom should be confirmed with UKEF before a transaction is built around it.

For Swiss exporters, SERV assesses Ukraine transactions case by case under its cover policy, and strengthening SERV's risk-bearing capacity for Ukraine is one of the six measures of the Swiss programme we described in our update on the Swiss route. Exporters from other countries should check their own agency's published position; several have reopened selectively.

The EU guarantee

The EU's Ukraine Investment Framework, the guarantee and blending pillar of the Ukraine Facility, de-risks loans and investments channelled through partner institutions and insures no company directly. We covered its mechanics in How the EU funds Ukraine. For most companies its practical form is a better-priced or better-secured loan from an IFI or partner bank; no policy document changes hands.

Combining the instruments

A bankable Ukraine project usually combines several instruments. A manufacturer building a plant might hold MIGA war and civil disturbance cover on its equity, insure the plant itself through a Ukrainian insurer with DFC-backed reinsurance, insure inbound equipment and outbound products through a Ukrainian insurer reinsured under the EBRD facility, finance the project through an IFI facility supported by the UIF guarantee, and, for the equipment and services the parent itself supplies into the project from home, cover those export receivables through its home ECA, whose eligibility turns on the exporter, the transaction and national content (UKEF's export insurance requires an established UK business exporting from the UK with at least 20 per cent UK content; SERV requires a Swiss-registered exporter and, in general, at least 20 per cent Swiss content); the Ukrainian plant's own exports out of Ukraine are not covered by that route.

Five instruments, five counterparties, five sets of conditions, and they need to fit together: the security package the lender wants must not conflict with the insurer's subrogation rights, the insured values must track the intra-group contracts, and every instrument runs its own sanctions, anti-corruption and compliance diligence. The combination should be designed before the investment decision. MIGA applications, IFI credit processes and ECA decisions that need ministerial or board approval take months; UKEF quotes one to two weeks for ordinary export insurance applications.

Two further points from practice. First, cover is capacity-constrained and phased: MIGA's trust fund is still fundraising toward its target, the EBRD facility's guarantee is fully committed and recycled only as policies expire, so new cover depends on expiries and on the planned expansion, UKEF's Ukraine cover is broadly utilised, and positions change with the security situation, so what is available must be checked transaction by transaction. Second, claims discipline starts on day one: documented asset values, inventories, photographs and clean corporate records are what turn a war-damage policy into a recovery.

What this means for you

• Treat insurability as a feasibility test. If the exposure cannot be covered by any of the instruments, that is information about the project.
• Match the instrument to the exposure. Investment cover, static-property cover, transit cover, export cover and financing guarantees answer different risks. Map your exposures first, then approach the right counterparties.
• Engage early and in parallel. MIGA applications, IFI credit processes and ECA decisions on Ukraine risks that need ministerial or board approval take months; standard ECA products can be quicker (UKEF quotes one to two weeks for its ordinary export insurance), so time each instrument by product, complexity and approvals, and run them alongside the structuring.
• Align the paperwork. Intra-group contracts, security packages and insured values must be consistent across the instruments, and every counterparty will test your sanctions and anti-corruption controls.
• Build the claims file from the start. Valuation evidence and clean records are what turn a war-damage policy into a recovery.

Isak Legal advises Swiss, UK, US and European companies on structuring Ukraine-related investments, including the interaction of insurance, guarantees and financing across the public instruments, and Ukrainian companies on reaching Western partners and financing. See our Ukraine: Investment and Reconstruction page, or get in touch.

This client update is provided for general information only, reflects the position as at 26 September 2026 and does not constitute legal, insurance or financial advice or create a lawyer-client relationship. Cover availability, figures and facility terms are those published at the sources linked above and change with circumstances; always confirm current positions with the relevant institution. For advice on a specific matter, please contact us.