International Aid Donor Motivations and the HDP Nexus in Ukraine: Theories of International Relations Beyond the Humanitarian Paradigm

This article uses the case of Ukraine to refine the conceptual approach to strategic planning of international assistance beyond the humanitarian response. We argue that no single theory of international relations explains donor motivations. Instead, we propose a synthesized perspective that integrates liberal, realist, constructivist, and critical approaches with the Humanitarian-Development-Peacebuilding (HDP) nexus. At this intersection, we develop a portfolio logic that ensures programs address all three components of the nexus and reduce the risk of neglecting any of them. We illustrate the theoretical synthesis with donor practices of the European Union, Northern Europe, the United Kingdom, the United States, and others, where the geography of threats, political cycles, defense-industrial capacities, and reform conditionality shape the pace and scale of support. In this model, we replace peacebuilding with peace sensitivity, which prioritizes programs that foster social harmony and cohesion.As a practical contribution, we design an analytical “HDP × Donor Motivations Matrix” that systematizes nonlethal interventions across four motivational logics and three HDP dimensions. The matrix operationalizes stated donor motivations into results aimed at positive social change, ranging from legal services and transparent registries to civilian protection, human capital development, inclusive dialogues, and localized projects. We argue that effective implementation requires layering urgent and structural interventions supported by long-term flexible financing, localized prioritization, and transparent governance.We also identify typical bottlenecks in implementing the nexus in wartime and postwar contexts, including fragmented coordination, incompatible budgetary and legal frameworks, diverging time horizons, and insufficient interoperable data. We propose mechanisms to address these constraints through shared expected results, unified monitoring approaches, open data, and community participation in decision-making. We conclude that our approach transforms diverse donor motivations into joint trajectories of stabilization and recovery, strengthens trust between donors and recipients, and reduces risks of long-term dependence on external assistance.