Transformation of financing channels for small and medium-sized businesses in wartime and the tasks of state economic security policy

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to analyse the transformation of small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) financing channels in Ukraine under wartime conditions, to identify the bifurcation of the financial ecosystem into official and unofficial segments, and to determine the objectives of state economic security policy. The central question is: how should the state respond to this bifurcation – through regulation, integration of alternative channels, or expansion of official instruments? The relevance of the research is determined by the fact that SMEs constitute 99.98 % of all business entities in Ukraine, provide 74 % of employment and generate 64 % of added value; hence, the financial resilience of this sector is synonymous with the resilience of the national economy. The methodological framework comprises systemic analysis employing the Conservation of Resources theory and comparative analysis based on data from the National Bank of Ukraine, IFC, World Bank, and Chainalysis.
The study establishes that the war has caused a structural transition from a market-based bank lending model to a state-donor model with a financing gap of USD 29 billion, where the
“5-7-9 %” programme and international grants have become the primary sources of capital. Analysis of the credit portfolio structure revealed the predominance of working capital financing (22 %) over investment financing (16 %), indicating that state programmes function as liquidity support instruments rather than development stimulators. The concentration of over 73 % of loans in state-owned banks creates additional risks to fiscal sustainability.
Simultaneously, an unofficial channel through stablecoins has emerged: Ukraine has ranked first globally in terms of stablecoin share in the economy, which represents not a deviation but a natural adaptive response by businesses to the limitations of the official system. This channel provides entrepreneurs with rapid cross-border settlements (2–5 minutes compared to 1–3 days with banks), lower fees (0–1.5 % versus 3–5 %), and protection against hryvnia devaluation. The regulatory asymmetry with the EU (USDT delisting due to MiCA) has created a competitive advantage for Ukrainian businesses in accessing global crypto liquidity exceeding USD 186 billion.
A combined state policy strategy has been substantiated: phased integration of cryptocurrency settlements into the regulated environment alongside parallel improvement of official financing instruments. The first stage (1–2 years) envisages adoption of crypto-asset taxation legislation with an amnesty mechanism; the second stage (3–5 years) involves modernisation of the “5-7-9 %” programme and implementation of blended finance mechanisms; the third stage entails harmonisation with EU regulatory standards. It has been demonstrated that economic security under bifurcation conditions is ensured not through the dominance of one channel, but through their functional specialisation and complementarity: banks for long-term lending, cryptocurrencies for operational cross-border settlements. Conceptually, this signifies a transition from the “either-or” paradigm to the “both-and” paradigm, where official and unofficial channels serve as complementary elements of a unified financial ecosystem.