The Pottery Barn Rule

There is no way to predict with any degree of honest intellectual rigor when or how the war in Ukraine will end. One thing, however, is certain. It will cost an enormous amount of money to repair the damage Ukraine has suffered.

As of June 2022, the World Bank estimated the war’s cost at $350 billion. That was after a little more than three months of war. Since then, higher estimates have been issued but have varied widely. It’s impossible to estimate the final cost since we can’t know the extent of the final damage. But it’s a reasonable hypothesis that the cost will be somewhere in the neighborhood of one trillion dollars. And whatever the postwar estimate is, based on experience with massive, complex projects, I’ll take the over.

In a world of fairness, Russia would be made to pay the entire bill. The United States/NATO has frozen over $300 billion of Russian assets. Perhaps that money can be used, but there are serious legal issues with doing so. And it sets a dangerous precedent for other countries seizing U.S assets.

That said, we can hope for a peace where Russia agrees to relinquish its frozen assets and pays an indemnity that will finance most or all of the cost of the reconstruction of Ukraine. But it would be folly to depend upon that outcome or even call it likely. Therefore, I think it’s a fair question to ask whether the United States/NATO will pay what might be many hundreds of billions of dollars to reconstruct Ukraine.  

I believe the United States has a moral responsibility to do so.

Bang for the Buck

I’ve read many opinion pieces arguing that the military and other aid we’re giving to Ukraine is a wonderful investment for the United States. For a mere sliver of our military budget, we are “bleeding Russia dry.” One of the most purblind headlines: “It’s Costing Peanuts for the U.S. to Defeat Russia.”

These are shameful arguments. The devastation of Ukraine and its people should never be referred to as anything other than a tremendous human cost in death and suffering and grief. I understand the political desire not to highlight a postwar moral and strategic financial obligation that may be many multiples of the aid we’ve given. That would change for the worse the calculus of the specious “bang for the buck” argument.  But silence on the matter does nothing to reduce the obligation

Reliance (“Promissory Estoppel”)

Ukraine has relied primarily upon the United States to sustain the war. Moreover, the American refusal to commit to Russia that Ukraine’s future membership in NATO would be constrained  was a factor, dispositive or not, in Russia’s decision to invade. In the future, historians will analyze and debate whether America chose the correct pre-war diplomacy –––avoidance of blackmail or unnecessary provocation or somewhere in between–––but that is a moot point right now.

Will We Own Up to Our Moral Debt to Rebuild Ukraine Post-War?

If the cost is in the many hundreds of billions of dollars, will the American public support such an expenditure? Will Congress? After World War Two, the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe was a strategic necessity. The Soviet Union had just demonstrated an awesome military capability in their defeat of Nazi Germany. Soviet domination of Western Europe was a credible threat, some would say a certainty, unless the United States had stepped in as a bulwark. 

Even so, President Truman was advised by influential Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg that to get popular support for substantial aid, Truman would “have to scare the hell out of the American people.” Vandenberg was also well known for saying that “politics stops at the water’s edge.” Truman succeeded in painting a dire picture, and so the Marshall plan was enacted, the first time the United States gave substantial foreign aid outside of a war. Measured as a percentage of 1948 American GDP, the Marshall Plan was equivalent to almost $2 trillion of today’s GDP.  

How the war ends will determine how we perceive the threat Russia will continue to pose to peace in Europe. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has revealed not its military strength but rather its military weakness. Therefore, I’m guessing that post-war, it will be hard to “pull a Vandenberg” and sell the American people that Russia poses a military threat to the NATO alliance.

Before our invasion of Iraq in 2003, Colin Powell told President Bush that the “Pottery Barn Rule” was in effect. “You break it, you own it.”

Of course there are many differences between the two invasions. We invaded Iraq; Russia invaded Ukraine. The similarity is that without our support, Ukraine would not have been able to prolong the war and so the breakage and shattering has continued and escalated.

So like it or not, if Russia won’t or can’t pay, I think we “own” the destruction of Ukraine. If we do the right thing, this war will be far more expensive financially than is commonly understood. If we do the wrong thing, it will be far more expensive morally.

P.S. I understand that a “Pledge Your Support Button” has recently infiltrated my posts. Please ignore! Reading is all the support I ask.