Four years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s venture capital and startup ecosystem operates under wartime conditions that fit into the framework described by Ben Horowitz perfectly. In his book, The Hard Thing About Hard Things, he contrasts “peacetime” leadership, focused on people and business growth, and “wartime” leadership, defined by speed and accuracy. Except that in Ukraine’s case, that distinction isn’t metaphoric — it reflects the reality in which founders and investors have worked since February 24, 2022, and the approaches the ecosystem has developed to keep building.
We spoke with partners from Ukrainian funds SMRK, u.ventures, and Flyer One Ventures, as well as the founder of HIMERA, and investors from European funds, including Tilia Impact Ventures and Presto Tech Horizons, to understand how venture capital in and around Ukraine has adapted, which wartime technics ecosystem has adopted, and how they may begin to shape Europe’s new normal.
Day zero: what Ukraine’s VCs did first
Months before the full-scale war, uncertainty and tension had already begun to shape daily life in Ukraine. As reports of Russian troop buildup near the borders intensified, media and official channels shared practical guidance — how to prepare emergency bags, how to stay safe at home during shelling, and where to find bomb shelters. It was in that atmosphere that Vlad Tislenko, Partner at SMRK, decided he would remain in Kyiv regardless of what followed: “I made a public commitment that I would stay there no matter what happened. I still hold that promise,” he says.
When the invasion began, many companies had no contingency plan, partly because the idea of a full-scale war in 21st-century Europe had seemed unlikely. The same was true for Flyer One Ventures.
“We had no plan. With some companies, we set up conditional evacuation plans and reserved hotels in western Ukraine. As a fund, we decided to respond as things unfolded,” remembers Vital Laptenok, the fund’s GP.
His priority was people — a focus shared by Bohdan Svyrydov, GP at u.ventures. Partners contacted founders and teams to confirm they were safe and offered practical help: relocation, transport, fuel, cash, and logistics. “We were assisting them in any way we could in resuming operations. Meanwhile, we paused new investments for the entire 2022 to reorient resources toward humanitarian help,” Svyrydov says.
What the war has changed for Ukraine’s VCs
Investors moved closer to the founders
The sense of support and operational closeness between investors and founders that emerged in the first weeks of the invasion didn’t fade once companies stabilized. It became part of how funds worked. When some Ukrainian startups began facing hesitation from international investors because of perceived geopolitical risk, local VCs stepped in more actively — supporting fundraising conversations and introductions. At u.ventures, Bohdan Svyrydov says the shift was immediate:
“Some companies with most founders and employees based in Ukraine, suddenly started getting turned down by potential investors in their new rounds due to the military risks, sometimes even right before the signing of transaction documents.”
Over time, he says, that perception changed as international funds saw that Ukrainian teams continued building despite all the challenges. “Most investors have now become convinced of the resilience of Ukrainian startups. This risk is much less concern than it was in 2022.”
Founders experienced that firsthand. Early on, Ukrainian companies could face skepticism and be seen as a disadvantage, sometimes resulting in lower valuations from European partners and investors, says Misha Rudominski, co-founder of HIMERA, a manufacturer of warfare-resistant radio systems, adding that this has been steadily changing:
“Today, there’s much more recognition that Ukrainian companies often have real traction from very early stages and, importantly, can prove that their products work in real battlefield conditions. I believe we’ll soon see investors not just accepting this, but actually paying a premium for it, because that kind of validation and relevance is something you don’t get in every geography.”
In the meantime, Ukrainian investors often stepped in to fill that access gap, acting as connectors as much as capital providers. “We opened our network, made introductions to relevant potential clients, and helped attract additional capital if needed. Since we are based in Kyiv, we can also assist founders who are abroad with situations where local presence is required,” Svyrydov from SMRK claims.
The investment process was rebuilt
At Flyer One Ventures, Vital Laptenok says the same wartime pressures — alongside rising interest rates and the surge of AI — reshaped how the fund operated internally. The team rebuilt its investment process from scratch, making it leaner, faster, with automated operational workflows, standardized evaluation methods for both companies and founders, and earlier partner alignment in deals.
“Decision-making got much faster. It used to take about a month to close a deal and send the money. Now we can do it within a couple of days,” he underlines.
Part of that change came from restructuring diligence: instead of running a full analysis before convening the investment committee, as F1V did before launching Fund V, partners now meet upfront to decide where deeper work is needed. The result, Laptenok says, is a process built for speed and clarity rather than long internal cycles.
The same emphasis on speed is visible on the founder's side. HIMERA, as a wartime-founded company, built its operating culture around speed, ownership, coordination, and constant adaptation to battlefield realities: “Wartime reality reshaped how we think about risk and opportunity. The biggest risk was not trying. The opportunity was to build something that could make a real, practical difference for people who rely on it every day in the field,” Rudominski explains.
He says that as wartime founders learned to stay extremely agile, ready to change direction quickly, and constantly adapt to both our operating environment and the customers’ realities.
“In some cases, by the time you deliver a product, the battlefield context has already changed, and what you were building is no longer fully relevant. You have to be prepared to scrap things, rethink them, and move fast again.”
That same operating logic is visible across the ecosystem. At u.ventures, committees and investment processes have been streamlined and deal timelines shortened to weeks rather than months. “That speed is now a competitive advantage,” says Svyrydov. Capital strategy shifted as well. Check sizes expanded from roughly $250,000–500,000 before the full-scale invasion to as much as $7 million in recent rounds, while follow-on investments now account for close to 40% of deployed capital — a sign of a greater concentration around companies already showing resilience.
The recalibration goes further at Flyer One Ventures, where a typical check that once reached about $500,000 can now be extended to $1.5 million for high-conviction deals, while reserve strategy has remained consistent, with one-third of capital set aside for follow-ons.
For SMRK, the wartime did not mean rewriting its investment thesis. The fund has continued investing under the same thesis it had before 2022. The main change has been sectoral. “The only adjustment to our investment practices is that we have become more bullish on dual-use and cybersecurity sectors,” says Vlad Tislenko.
What the war has changed for European funds
When Russia invaded Ukraine, the impact on venture capital extended far beyond one country. Across Europe, and especially CEE, the war reordered priorities and forced investors to rethink their assumptions and approaches. As Peter Vitek, co-founder and GP at Tilia Impact Ventures, recalls:
“I remember having this Christmas wish in late 2021 that Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine, as I felt it could have huge consequences. I wasn’t ready to let go of the underlying assumptions about business and markets — that trade tariff wars don’t make sense and won’t happen, or that 5% of GDP for defence is unrealistic and security wouldn’t deprioritise climate, education, or inequality."
One visible result has been the rapid emergence and expansion of defence and dual-use investing. Before 2022, procurement cycles in these sectors often stretched for years. Today, credible early-stage investors can accelerate trust and shorten adoption timelines. “There is growing recognition that security and resilience are prerequisites for economic stability, technological sovereignty, and long-term returns,” says Matej Luhovy, Partner at Presto Tech Horizons.
At Presto, the structure of the decision-making process hasn’t changed, but the nature of investment committee conversations has. “We now explicitly stress-test geopolitical exposure, supply chain resilience, defence readiness, and customer concentration. Scenario analysis has become more systematic and rigorous,” he says.
He points to another, less visible shift. Ukrainian startups, forced to operate under wartime constraints, optimized for capital efficiency, rapid deployment, and real customer validation. That discipline, he argues, is reshaping how Presto evaluates frontier technologies across Europe — with less tolerance for vanity metrics and more emphasis on durability.
Funds that do not invest directly in defence are adapting to the same macro environment. Fundraising has become more demanding, especially for companies with complex models or those outside traditional VC categories, Vitek claims. In response, investors are encouraging longer runways and increasing follow-on deployment. “Ticket sizes have increased, and we’re deploying more follow-on capital than initially anticipated,” says Tilia’s GP.
What defines a “wartime VC”
Operationally, the shift is clear: investment committees have been streamlined, decisions made faster, diligence reordered, and relationships with founders become closer and structured. “All critical processes now have a Plan B. That is the only way to stay productive in this environment,” says Vlad Tislenko from SMRK.
But four years of full-scale war changed more than workflows; they also reshaped how investors themselves think. Partners describe becoming more decisive, more comfortable with uncertainty, and less distracted by things that once felt urgent.
“The war trained me to move fast. In those first days, you had no luxury to sleep on decisions. You act or lose the moment. That habit stuck,” says Vital Laptenok of Flyer One Ventures.
What Ukrainian investors developed out of necessity is increasingly reflected in how venture firms across Europe approach risk and decision-making in a less predictable market environment. As Matej Luhovy of Presto puts it: “There’s a stronger emphasis on scenario planning. In volatile environments, ambiguity is often more damaging than a difficult but clear answer.”
Investors agree that what began in February 2022 as a rapid response to an unprovoked war has, over time, evolved into a distinct way of operating. In that sense, “wartime VC” is no longer a temporary condition; it is gradually becoming part of Europe’s venture capital normal.
