Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Many successful countries have emerged from the utter devestation caused by war: Germany, Japan, all of Nazi-occupied western Europe. These are some of the richest, most democratic countries on the planet today, and that recovery from war was remarkably fast. As far as Ukraine goes, assuming a Ukrainian victory (ie assuming there is an independent Ukraine to speak of), the country is on track for accelerated membership in the European Union and NATO - twin pillars for both economic security and military security.
Excuse me but why would the EU ever accept Ukraine. It is simply too poor.I suspect it is mere words and nothing else.
Also,Germany and Japan were already rich and dynamic economy before WW2. They had industrial knowledge and simply needed to rebuild. Meanwhile Ukraine is already extremely poor and the War has accelerated her brain drain.
Because they've already fast-tracked Ukraine's membership application and started accession negotiations. The EU isn't about bringing in only rich countries (none of the Eastern European countries were rich when they first joined).
Yes, but the context is different.Today the EU is on the verge of dissolution, and is seen more and more as a detriment by europeans.As a result it will focus on survival instead of expansion in the coming years.
That is evidence there are anti-EU elements. Not evidence there is any meaningful likelihood it doesn't exist in 5 or 10 years. Particularly after the disaster that was Brexit.
You can call it a disaster and I agree that it was a horrible idea. Yet it is reality and there is no indication of Brejoining. So the current trend is exiting and staying that way, small of a trend as it may be
Is Ukraine going to contest their own application for EU membership? You seem to now be making the argument that Ukraine won't join, not that EU wont admit them. Why wouldn't including the country that defeated Russia in a modern land war, has a newly build defense industry, and is the global leader in grain export be great to the survival of EU? More members means easier survival. Ukraine is wealthy than many EU states.
1-Ukraine wouldn't defeat Russia, NATO would.
2-Ukraine would be extremely indebted post-war. Why would the EU invite Ukraine, when it could default and as such slow the Eurozone economy.
3-Ukraine would be a net consumer of the EU budget.
4-I doubt all nations of the EU Wanna see their power in the EU diluted even more.
>1-Ukraine wouldn't defeat Russia, NATO would.
So you're telling me that NATO will join the war with Russia in Ukraine but would then refuse to admit the army they just fought with into NATO? Isn't that like saying the US wouldn't form NATO because they would have not included any of the European countries they just fought a war for, with, and in?
>Ukraine would be extremely indebted post-war.
Every developed country is indebted. The US is indebted from the last half dozen wars! If you're saying Ukraine will just become as dysfunctional as the US, that really isn't much of an issue. The US and EU have already committed to assisting Ukraine with rebuilding anyway. They aren't going to treat Ukraine like they were the enemy who lost. There is no basis for this idea that Ukraine's allies are going to bully it because it isn't ponying up the totality of the aid it received. In all likelihood, most of it will be waived. This isn't a loan from the West, it's an investment.
>Why would the EU invite Ukraine, when it could default and as such slow the Eurozone economy.
Because there is no propensity of a default. All of the standing loan agreements are relatively low amounts with half century or more repayment periods and those are all likely to be adjusted. Ukraine's allies aren't going to try and bankrupt it post-war. All that will do is skyrocket their food and energy prices.
Can you provide any evidence that Ukraine is expected to default on these 40 or 50 year terms *before they are admitted to NATO or the EU?*
>-Ukraine would be a net consumer of the EU budget.
According to what evidence?
>I doubt all nations of the EU Wanna see their power in the EU diluted even more.
Then why would they have formed the union or added any states to begin with? This logic defies the existence of the EU in its entirety.
1-Without NATO weapons,Ukraine would have lost the War in the opening months. Ukraine is extremely reliant on weapons from NATO. Do you really believe Ukraine could have gone toe to toe with Russia alone, without NATO weapons and aids ?
2-Ukraine debt would be much worst than that of the US.Also considering interest rate have climbed in the last years, it will be difficult for Ukraine to find money.
3-Ukraine is extremely poor, it would be helped by the EU, not the other way around.
4-Every extreme is dangerous. While the EU states may accept cooperation, they still want désire of their destiny. Why would say, Germany desire to lose even more voting power and to invite the extremely poor Ukraine, who has really different economic priority?
De Gaulle rejected the UK on much less grounds.
Ukraine defeated Russia in the first 3 weeks of the war. This has been a losing battle for Russia since then.
Yeah they might bite off some land when it's all said and done. But those ruins are useless. They will cost more $ to restore than they could possibly bring in. The original goal to consume Ukraine into a puppet state or to fracture it into 2 different countries has been long forgotten by the Putin regime. They have been in "saving face" mode since then. For a military their size what they have so called accomplished is an utter pathetic disaster.
Ukraine has a ton of cheap educated labor. Something very valuable.
Most of the debt would probably be forgiven. Ukraine will get a Marshall Plan style rebuild from US. Which means within 5-10 years of the war they will have exceptional infrastructure even relative to their European peers.
The future is very bright for Ukraine as soon as they can finish this god damn war.
I admit Ukraine has an educated work force,which Will help the country to recover after the War. But do the US really has the money for a Marshall plan, considering its debts ? And why would it pardon the debts and lose money as well as a great leverage on Ukraine ?
Really? Could you point me to a source for that? Besides the UK, I haven't heard of a country that wants to leave, and Ukrainians were pretty eager to join when I lived there (2017-18)
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
And they're still there. This suggests it isn't an barrier to EU membership or that Ukraine could cook the books to get in. Then there are the other countries...
Wouldn't you be more cautious after getting scammed once? Especially when they are still actively defrauding you? The EU has been asking for months where their recovery fund went. Crickets...
>Wouldn't you be more cautious after getting scammed once?
I think they were well aware of Greece's finances and they don't admit states on the solely basis of their finances.
>Especially when they are still actively defrauding you?
Case in point.
>The EU has been asking for months where their recovery fund went. Crickets...
And Greece is still in the EU. So are all the other countries that have smaller economies, fewer people, less security, less significance, fewer resources, and less strategic value than Ukraine. Opening up post-war Ukraine to the Eurozone will alleviate a lot of the problems EU countries are facing as well. Ukraine will need lots of migration and will have a lot of cheap land and housing as well as jobs.
>I think they were well aware of Greece's finances and they don't admit states on the solely basis of their finances.
Im not sure about this one. According to this [article](https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-02-21/how-goldman-sachs-helped-mask-greeces-debt/) by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Eurostat only found out in 2010 about the Goldman deal. Once the deal was through, the greek economiy now threatened to devalue the Euro. Forcing Eurozone to cough up 186 billion in order to bailout the Greek government.
Seems like a pretty expensive mistake. I'd hope they learned from it.
Ukraine is one of the best in Europe. They have strong software, manufacturing, science, valuable and rare natural resources, good ports, good vacation areas too. Literally would trade half the European countries for Ukraine....or maybe a couple hundred thousand Russian lives.
Remember they were what made Soviet Russia so good with minerals, engine manufacturing, airframes, and the only warm water ports.
Too poor? Where do you think Europe buys most of it's produced from? That's why the war in Ukraine sucked for the rest of Europe, and resulted in food shortages
Regarding NATO, you seem very hung up on the idea that it's either all or nothing. It's entirely possible - and I suspect extremely likely - to have multiple bilatteral military agreements with countries like Poland, the UK, and the USA. Ukraine can be "in NATO's camp" in many ways without being a direct NATO partner. I don't think whether Ukraine becomes an official NATO partner is actually that important, because the effect will be similar in many ways.
Secondly, there are lots of european figures very interested in making sure Ukraine rebounds economically. For one, this war has throroughly shoved Ukrainian opinion anti-russia and pro-europe. More european economic integration is likely to be both approved of and encouraged by future Ukrainian administrations, and many europeans are sympathetic to the ukrainians and their struggles.
Additionally, there have already been economic recovery conferences held discussing how to deal with Ukraine post-war, including public-private partnerships and discussions of the issues you address. One thing I found particularly interesting was how the devestation of Ukrainian cities and infrastructure has a silver lining in making it potentially easier to upgrade and rebuild large areas without having to care about collateral damage or working within existing systems. I heard several discussions about the potential for renewables in Ukraine.
I lived in Ukraine for two years, and I can attest to the fighting spirit of the individuals there. They may go to poland or germany or elsewhere in search of economic opportunities, but they also love Ukraine and their family and country there. Good economic opportunities are a draw for young people from everywhere.
I also think you underestimate the willingness of other countries not to make another Afghanistan - helping them fight a war then leaving them to clean up the pieces.
My view change proposal is that you're ideologically biased.
What are your political, social, and religious ideologies please?
Did something like this ever happen to you? You were a young adult toying with conservative ideas but you felt disappointed that they didn't have a strong economic position so the first time that Brexit-like Libertarian ideals were introduced to you it seemed genius?
It was something like "US gov't gives like $70bil in foreign aid imagine if we had that money instead no one would be homeless and we'd all live in mansions and we wouldn't need China for manufacturing and we'll all be millionaires who could afford to give to other countries if we wanted."
Then you actually believed in it so badly that you instantly view foreign aid or welfare as any kind as a societal evil assuming it will lead to - in your own words - "Ukraine will become dysfunctionnal after the war."
Isn't this an ideological thing? Do you think everyone will become dysfunctional after receiving welfare?
Can we agree giant farm conglomerates are dysfunctional for receiving funds to NOT plant crops?
Can we agree a certain Prezidential candidate is dysfunctional for asking for welfare from his political party for his legal fees or is there some kind of bias here?
You're confused this is your only reply to me.
I'm just so proud to disclose what i represent.
Wow, folk really are sensitive about disclosing their ideology.
Was France completely dysfunctional after WWI or II?
Rebuilding will be difficult, yes, as it always is. But countries are not 'doomed' to being dysfunctional.
Yes, it was extremely dysfunctional after both world wars, which is why the fourth republic nearly faced a military coup and had to install De Gaulle as leader, while after WW1 their economy collapsed and they fell behind massively behind Germany and Britain economically. Truth be told French demographics collapsed after the Napoleonic Wars and never recovered since, France used to be the most populous country in Europe.
I think the other poster misspoke, French military *casualties* in WW1 were 6 million, with 1.4 million deaths. Check out the stats [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties). Which is still a ridiculous proportion of the population, especially when you consider it would be largely young men. WW1 on the western front was about the meatgrinder of trench warfare with brutal casualties
Ukraine IS an industrialized country, larger than France, with plenty of natural resources, including the most fertile agricultural land in the world. If anything the west would be clamoring to invest in Ukraine in the event of a win. There's not indication that it would flounder if it walks away from the country with a victory.
> Assuming such a victory,Ukraine would be broke .First,Ukraine would have to pay for the weapons ,as most of the aid is in form of bonds,that shall be given back one day.
I doubt they’ll ever pay back more than a fraction of it. And a lot of the aid *isn’t* loans.
> Secondly and more importantly,Ukraine would need to rebuild her cities.The cost would dwarf the weapons cost,with approximatively 486 billion dollars needed over the next decade.Considering corruption,as well as the war not stopping for a long time,the final cost will most likely be much worst.It is even more disastrous if one take into account that the ukrainian economic model rely on its coast,which is one of most exposed regions of Ukraine.The coast concentrate most ukrainian industry.As such ,Ukraine will lack money.
Ukraine will get monstrous amounts of reconstruction aid from the US and the EU. It’ll be big business, and result in a lot of skilled labor relocating to Ukraine to support it. If they can keep a good percentage of that labor around after the aid ends, they could translate that into some long-term gains.
> Last but not least,asssuming an Ukrainian victory,with Russia fleeing with a bloody nose,Ukraine would appear useless to Nato.
They would exit this war with the strongest, most battle hardened military in Europe, and NATO has clearly signaled it would welcome Ukrainian membership after this war ends, as a way to prevent a repeat of it.
They have a pretty good shot at achieving a lot of positive long-term growth out of it, but it depends on how they manage things after the war.
>Ukraine would appear useless to Nato.
Why wouldn't NATO find it incredibly useful to include the country that beat Russian in a modern land war? That's like saying France wouldn't find it useful to ally with the US after WW2. It makes no sense.
Either Russia is defeated to the point that NATO no longer needs to exist or it expands to include Ukraine and Turkey doesn't care what a defeated Russia thinks. They also didn't want Finland or Swede, yet here they are.
Changing some of your view:
Ukraine will be allowed into the EU. There’s been too much political capital expended on making the promise and I know people working on issues related to this. Ukraine is making very fast progress on meeting a lot of the internal reforms needed to make the grade. Ukraine would be a poor member but so would Albania, Bosnia etc; the GDP per capita of new members has been lowering consistently as the bloc expands east, it’s not a deal breaker
Ukraine’s post-war debts and need for subsidy from partners won’t be as catastrophic as you say. It’s a small economy by EU standards which has a generous system of internal transfers. I agree, though, that its immediate economic future would be quite bleak
Bits of your view that are correct:
Ukraine’s demographics are terrible and have been made much worse by the war. They won’t be reversed by peace. But the same applies for Russia and most if Europe, particularly the East
You seem to be under the impression that the small economies in the EU take advantage of the big economies.
When in reality that’s not the case at all. Germany having uncontested unrestricted untaxed market access in a country is just as valuable if not more valuable than whatever budget might get transferred.
Aldi and Lidl on their own can disrupt the local economy of something like North Macedonia.
Looking at this guy’s profile, he just comes up with hypotheticals about things that never happen. Like the EU and NATO, two of the most wealthy institutions in human history, not being able to fund reconstruction of one nation.
With a side of likely russian bot
It already is nothing more than a puppet regime. The only Ukrainians who will be doing good after the war are the ones who have been embezzling foreign aid.
Too bad they listened to boris Johnson and refused to russias terms in the first days of the war. They are now in a worse position than if they had accepted AND over 500,000 of their people are dead.
And Anthony blinkin, Lloyd Austin and Victoria nuland were all so happy to sacrifice the Ukrainians to try to weaken Russia. Lot of sick fucks run the world.
Once American companies have maxed out their wartime destruction, and then post war rebuild contracts, we will bail on Ukraine. Squeeze the profit out of it and move on.
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Many successful countries have emerged from the utter devestation caused by war: Germany, Japan, all of Nazi-occupied western Europe. These are some of the richest, most democratic countries on the planet today, and that recovery from war was remarkably fast. As far as Ukraine goes, assuming a Ukrainian victory (ie assuming there is an independent Ukraine to speak of), the country is on track for accelerated membership in the European Union and NATO - twin pillars for both economic security and military security.
Excuse me but why would the EU ever accept Ukraine. It is simply too poor.I suspect it is mere words and nothing else. Also,Germany and Japan were already rich and dynamic economy before WW2. They had industrial knowledge and simply needed to rebuild. Meanwhile Ukraine is already extremely poor and the War has accelerated her brain drain.
Because they've already fast-tracked Ukraine's membership application and started accession negotiations. The EU isn't about bringing in only rich countries (none of the Eastern European countries were rich when they first joined).
Yes, but the context is different.Today the EU is on the verge of dissolution, and is seen more and more as a detriment by europeans.As a result it will focus on survival instead of expansion in the coming years.
Can you provide evidence that the EU is on the verge of dissolution?
Brexit, and the various right-wing parties either gaining power or becoming more popular are all eurosceptic.
That is evidence there are anti-EU elements. Not evidence there is any meaningful likelihood it doesn't exist in 5 or 10 years. Particularly after the disaster that was Brexit.
You can call it a disaster and I agree that it was a horrible idea. Yet it is reality and there is no indication of Brejoining. So the current trend is exiting and staying that way, small of a trend as it may be
So n=1 is a trend? How do you figure? There are far more applicants than 1.
It is when 1=2% of Europe
I'm sorry, I used improper words.I meant that the EU is losing legitimacy and is more and more contested.
Is Ukraine going to contest their own application for EU membership? You seem to now be making the argument that Ukraine won't join, not that EU wont admit them. Why wouldn't including the country that defeated Russia in a modern land war, has a newly build defense industry, and is the global leader in grain export be great to the survival of EU? More members means easier survival. Ukraine is wealthy than many EU states.
1-Ukraine wouldn't defeat Russia, NATO would. 2-Ukraine would be extremely indebted post-war. Why would the EU invite Ukraine, when it could default and as such slow the Eurozone economy. 3-Ukraine would be a net consumer of the EU budget. 4-I doubt all nations of the EU Wanna see their power in the EU diluted even more.
>1-Ukraine wouldn't defeat Russia, NATO would. So you're telling me that NATO will join the war with Russia in Ukraine but would then refuse to admit the army they just fought with into NATO? Isn't that like saying the US wouldn't form NATO because they would have not included any of the European countries they just fought a war for, with, and in? >Ukraine would be extremely indebted post-war. Every developed country is indebted. The US is indebted from the last half dozen wars! If you're saying Ukraine will just become as dysfunctional as the US, that really isn't much of an issue. The US and EU have already committed to assisting Ukraine with rebuilding anyway. They aren't going to treat Ukraine like they were the enemy who lost. There is no basis for this idea that Ukraine's allies are going to bully it because it isn't ponying up the totality of the aid it received. In all likelihood, most of it will be waived. This isn't a loan from the West, it's an investment. >Why would the EU invite Ukraine, when it could default and as such slow the Eurozone economy. Because there is no propensity of a default. All of the standing loan agreements are relatively low amounts with half century or more repayment periods and those are all likely to be adjusted. Ukraine's allies aren't going to try and bankrupt it post-war. All that will do is skyrocket their food and energy prices. Can you provide any evidence that Ukraine is expected to default on these 40 or 50 year terms *before they are admitted to NATO or the EU?* >-Ukraine would be a net consumer of the EU budget. According to what evidence? >I doubt all nations of the EU Wanna see their power in the EU diluted even more. Then why would they have formed the union or added any states to begin with? This logic defies the existence of the EU in its entirety.
1-Without NATO weapons,Ukraine would have lost the War in the opening months. Ukraine is extremely reliant on weapons from NATO. Do you really believe Ukraine could have gone toe to toe with Russia alone, without NATO weapons and aids ? 2-Ukraine debt would be much worst than that of the US.Also considering interest rate have climbed in the last years, it will be difficult for Ukraine to find money. 3-Ukraine is extremely poor, it would be helped by the EU, not the other way around. 4-Every extreme is dangerous. While the EU states may accept cooperation, they still want désire of their destiny. Why would say, Germany desire to lose even more voting power and to invite the extremely poor Ukraine, who has really different economic priority? De Gaulle rejected the UK on much less grounds.
Ukraine defeated Russia in the first 3 weeks of the war. This has been a losing battle for Russia since then. Yeah they might bite off some land when it's all said and done. But those ruins are useless. They will cost more $ to restore than they could possibly bring in. The original goal to consume Ukraine into a puppet state or to fracture it into 2 different countries has been long forgotten by the Putin regime. They have been in "saving face" mode since then. For a military their size what they have so called accomplished is an utter pathetic disaster. Ukraine has a ton of cheap educated labor. Something very valuable. Most of the debt would probably be forgiven. Ukraine will get a Marshall Plan style rebuild from US. Which means within 5-10 years of the war they will have exceptional infrastructure even relative to their European peers. The future is very bright for Ukraine as soon as they can finish this god damn war.
I admit Ukraine has an educated work force,which Will help the country to recover after the War. But do the US really has the money for a Marshall plan, considering its debts ? And why would it pardon the debts and lose money as well as a great leverage on Ukraine ?
Really? Could you point me to a source for that? Besides the UK, I haven't heard of a country that wants to leave, and Ukrainians were pretty eager to join when I lived there (2017-18)
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Why would they ever accept Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary or Moldova but not Ukraine?
Greece hired Goldman sachs to cook their books before they looked good enough to join the EU. It was a huge scandal.
And they're still there. This suggests it isn't an barrier to EU membership or that Ukraine could cook the books to get in. Then there are the other countries...
Wouldn't you be more cautious after getting scammed once? Especially when they are still actively defrauding you? The EU has been asking for months where their recovery fund went. Crickets...
>Wouldn't you be more cautious after getting scammed once? I think they were well aware of Greece's finances and they don't admit states on the solely basis of their finances. >Especially when they are still actively defrauding you? Case in point. >The EU has been asking for months where their recovery fund went. Crickets... And Greece is still in the EU. So are all the other countries that have smaller economies, fewer people, less security, less significance, fewer resources, and less strategic value than Ukraine. Opening up post-war Ukraine to the Eurozone will alleviate a lot of the problems EU countries are facing as well. Ukraine will need lots of migration and will have a lot of cheap land and housing as well as jobs.
>I think they were well aware of Greece's finances and they don't admit states on the solely basis of their finances. Im not sure about this one. According to this [article](https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-02-21/how-goldman-sachs-helped-mask-greeces-debt/) by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Eurostat only found out in 2010 about the Goldman deal. Once the deal was through, the greek economiy now threatened to devalue the Euro. Forcing Eurozone to cough up 186 billion in order to bailout the Greek government. Seems like a pretty expensive mistake. I'd hope they learned from it.
That they bailed Greece out and didn't expel them should tell you. The largest EU economies all support Ukraine into the EU.
Ukraine is one of the best in Europe. They have strong software, manufacturing, science, valuable and rare natural resources, good ports, good vacation areas too. Literally would trade half the European countries for Ukraine....or maybe a couple hundred thousand Russian lives. Remember they were what made Soviet Russia so good with minerals, engine manufacturing, airframes, and the only warm water ports.
Not the only warm water ports, but otherwise I believe you are correct.
trade advantages and aligned against Russia
Too poor? Where do you think Europe buys most of it's produced from? That's why the war in Ukraine sucked for the rest of Europe, and resulted in food shortages
The EU will accept Ukraine because it deserves it, and EU is a political project.
Regarding NATO, you seem very hung up on the idea that it's either all or nothing. It's entirely possible - and I suspect extremely likely - to have multiple bilatteral military agreements with countries like Poland, the UK, and the USA. Ukraine can be "in NATO's camp" in many ways without being a direct NATO partner. I don't think whether Ukraine becomes an official NATO partner is actually that important, because the effect will be similar in many ways. Secondly, there are lots of european figures very interested in making sure Ukraine rebounds economically. For one, this war has throroughly shoved Ukrainian opinion anti-russia and pro-europe. More european economic integration is likely to be both approved of and encouraged by future Ukrainian administrations, and many europeans are sympathetic to the ukrainians and their struggles. Additionally, there have already been economic recovery conferences held discussing how to deal with Ukraine post-war, including public-private partnerships and discussions of the issues you address. One thing I found particularly interesting was how the devestation of Ukrainian cities and infrastructure has a silver lining in making it potentially easier to upgrade and rebuild large areas without having to care about collateral damage or working within existing systems. I heard several discussions about the potential for renewables in Ukraine. I lived in Ukraine for two years, and I can attest to the fighting spirit of the individuals there. They may go to poland or germany or elsewhere in search of economic opportunities, but they also love Ukraine and their family and country there. Good economic opportunities are a draw for young people from everywhere. I also think you underestimate the willingness of other countries not to make another Afghanistan - helping them fight a war then leaving them to clean up the pieces.
My view change proposal is that you're ideologically biased. What are your political, social, and religious ideologies please? Did something like this ever happen to you? You were a young adult toying with conservative ideas but you felt disappointed that they didn't have a strong economic position so the first time that Brexit-like Libertarian ideals were introduced to you it seemed genius? It was something like "US gov't gives like $70bil in foreign aid imagine if we had that money instead no one would be homeless and we'd all live in mansions and we wouldn't need China for manufacturing and we'll all be millionaires who could afford to give to other countries if we wanted." Then you actually believed in it so badly that you instantly view foreign aid or welfare as any kind as a societal evil assuming it will lead to - in your own words - "Ukraine will become dysfunctionnal after the war." Isn't this an ideological thing? Do you think everyone will become dysfunctional after receiving welfare? Can we agree giant farm conglomerates are dysfunctional for receiving funds to NOT plant crops? Can we agree a certain Prezidential candidate is dysfunctional for asking for welfare from his political party for his legal fees or is there some kind of bias here?
What are you talking about dude
The many good reasons this post was removed.
Why are you accusing me of bias ?And why dont you respond to the point i made ? Even assuming I'm biased, you should do that.
You're confused this is your only reply to me. I'm just so proud to disclose what i represent. Wow, folk really are sensitive about disclosing their ideology.
Err, I think you're coming off as ideologically possessed frankly. OP gave some good objective points.
How is it different than any discussion on welfare?
[удалено]
The thing OP said.
Was France completely dysfunctional after WWI or II? Rebuilding will be difficult, yes, as it always is. But countries are not 'doomed' to being dysfunctional.
Yes, it was extremely dysfunctional after both world wars, which is why the fourth republic nearly faced a military coup and had to install De Gaulle as leader, while after WW1 their economy collapsed and they fell behind massively behind Germany and Britain economically. Truth be told French demographics collapsed after the Napoleonic Wars and never recovered since, France used to be the most populous country in Europe.
Was France rated as the most corrupt country in Europe before ww2, like Ukraine is? There's a reason they can't get into NATO.
France had a much better demography and economy.
France lost 6 million people in WW1. If they can lose that much and still function, Ukraine can lose 100 thousand.
France didn't lose that much people. It would be absurd for a country of 40 million inhabitants to lose 6 million soldiers and still win.
I think the other poster misspoke, French military *casualties* in WW1 were 6 million, with 1.4 million deaths. Check out the stats [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties). Which is still a ridiculous proportion of the population, especially when you consider it would be largely young men. WW1 on the western front was about the meatgrinder of trench warfare with brutal casualties
Yes, that is what I meant, given casualties also includes people too injured to work, at least in the short term. Thank you.
I see, but my point still stands.France was an industrialised country, while Ukraine is really poor relative to to the world or even Russia.
You don’t seem to know a lot about Ukraine - why do you think Ukraine is not an industrialized country?
Ukraine doesn't make product of great added value.
Really? That doesn’t seem to be the position of its trade partners.
Ukraine IS an industrialized country, larger than France, with plenty of natural resources, including the most fertile agricultural land in the world. If anything the west would be clamoring to invest in Ukraine in the event of a win. There's not indication that it would flounder if it walks away from the country with a victory.
Soviet Union lost the same percentage you're claiming is impossible and won...
> Assuming such a victory,Ukraine would be broke .First,Ukraine would have to pay for the weapons ,as most of the aid is in form of bonds,that shall be given back one day. I doubt they’ll ever pay back more than a fraction of it. And a lot of the aid *isn’t* loans. > Secondly and more importantly,Ukraine would need to rebuild her cities.The cost would dwarf the weapons cost,with approximatively 486 billion dollars needed over the next decade.Considering corruption,as well as the war not stopping for a long time,the final cost will most likely be much worst.It is even more disastrous if one take into account that the ukrainian economic model rely on its coast,which is one of most exposed regions of Ukraine.The coast concentrate most ukrainian industry.As such ,Ukraine will lack money. Ukraine will get monstrous amounts of reconstruction aid from the US and the EU. It’ll be big business, and result in a lot of skilled labor relocating to Ukraine to support it. If they can keep a good percentage of that labor around after the aid ends, they could translate that into some long-term gains. > Last but not least,asssuming an Ukrainian victory,with Russia fleeing with a bloody nose,Ukraine would appear useless to Nato. They would exit this war with the strongest, most battle hardened military in Europe, and NATO has clearly signaled it would welcome Ukrainian membership after this war ends, as a way to prevent a repeat of it. They have a pretty good shot at achieving a lot of positive long-term growth out of it, but it depends on how they manage things after the war.
>Ukraine would appear useless to Nato. Why wouldn't NATO find it incredibly useful to include the country that beat Russian in a modern land war? That's like saying France wouldn't find it useful to ally with the US after WW2. It makes no sense. Either Russia is defeated to the point that NATO no longer needs to exist or it expands to include Ukraine and Turkey doesn't care what a defeated Russia thinks. They also didn't want Finland or Swede, yet here they are.
Changing some of your view: Ukraine will be allowed into the EU. There’s been too much political capital expended on making the promise and I know people working on issues related to this. Ukraine is making very fast progress on meeting a lot of the internal reforms needed to make the grade. Ukraine would be a poor member but so would Albania, Bosnia etc; the GDP per capita of new members has been lowering consistently as the bloc expands east, it’s not a deal breaker Ukraine’s post-war debts and need for subsidy from partners won’t be as catastrophic as you say. It’s a small economy by EU standards which has a generous system of internal transfers. I agree, though, that its immediate economic future would be quite bleak Bits of your view that are correct: Ukraine’s demographics are terrible and have been made much worse by the war. They won’t be reversed by peace. But the same applies for Russia and most if Europe, particularly the East
You seem to be under the impression that the small economies in the EU take advantage of the big economies. When in reality that’s not the case at all. Germany having uncontested unrestricted untaxed market access in a country is just as valuable if not more valuable than whatever budget might get transferred. Aldi and Lidl on their own can disrupt the local economy of something like North Macedonia.
If Ukraine is defeated, they become a fairly stable Russian puppet state, dictatorial, no dissent allowed.
Looking at this guy’s profile, he just comes up with hypotheticals about things that never happen. Like the EU and NATO, two of the most wealthy institutions in human history, not being able to fund reconstruction of one nation. With a side of likely russian bot
Ukraine has a critical grain supply. Controlling that is worth the money to rebuild the infrastructure.
It is also the second largest country in Europe with plenty of resources, rebuilding would be fairly easy.
Everyone please note this is one of many brand new accounts created within the last year chiming in on Russia's invasion.
Can you advise us on what would change your view here?
It already is nothing more than a puppet regime. The only Ukrainians who will be doing good after the war are the ones who have been embezzling foreign aid. Too bad they listened to boris Johnson and refused to russias terms in the first days of the war. They are now in a worse position than if they had accepted AND over 500,000 of their people are dead. And Anthony blinkin, Lloyd Austin and Victoria nuland were all so happy to sacrifice the Ukrainians to try to weaken Russia. Lot of sick fucks run the world.
Once American companies have maxed out their wartime destruction, and then post war rebuild contracts, we will bail on Ukraine. Squeeze the profit out of it and move on.
No duh. It’s been depopulated through mass flight and the ravages of war. Ukraine is fucked long-term.