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.
Certainly V Zelenskyy bears a large part of responsibility for all the death and destruction in Ukraine.
My thought is that all of the politicians and actors and neocons stuffing their pockets with the unaccounted for money that the US keeps sending should pay to clean it up and rebuild. Leave US taxpayers alone. Many of us wanted no part of this war. Just look for the politicians with bulging pockets. Have we not meddled in our countries’ affairs enough? Why don’t we ever learn? Oh that’s right-people and businesses are getting filthy rich.
Unfortunately, some people will always look to steal in any way they can. Knowing some of the rebuilding cost will be stolen has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with the moral and political imperatives to help in the rebuilding. It just means that, sadly, some money will be wasted in the process.
Zelensky bears some responsibility for the death and destruction? I believe it was his country that was attacked. Responsibility rests on Russia. Full stop.
I think your thoughts on this need to be taken seriously. Personally, I don’t see Zelensky as bearing a large part of the responsibility. I doubt that most of his countrymen thought this was going to be without a lot of sacrifice, and why should we expect the Ukrainians to just throw up their arms, and welcome the Russian invaders. Because, that’s what they are, invaders.
Yes, there has been a lot of corruption, but I see Zelensky acknowledging that, and working to remove those people. He’s not going to get them all, and there will always be corruption, as well as people getting rich off of others’ misery. If that was our criteria for helping those in need, then we might as well give up.
Yes, we should help them. It’s not just about being humanitarians, it’s also about stabilizing things, and helping to create a healthy ally.
Thanks, David. I hope you get more comments; this is an important topic.
We made the right choice in supporting the defense of Ukraine. That doesn't mean that it was a perfect choice. No choice is. The moral choice you offer us about rebuilding Ukraine is equally difficult. Given the underlying state of the American economy, can we afford to do what we should? If so, what's the tradeoff? How about Europe and GB. Don't they have an enormous obligation as well? We chose to help defend Ukraine for their sakes as much as Ukraine's. Yet, all of these issues, and the many others like them, pale in front of the grieving and the destruction that surrounds them. I don't know what all of our options are and even if I did, I wouldn't be confident of the right thing to do. I'm not sure that any sane person would be. Even so, we must make choices and we must do something. Maybe paying for the whole thing is the moral imperative and maybe it isn't - but doing as much as we can, as fast as we can, for as many as we can absolutely is.
We will certainly call upon the rest of NATO to do their part, but as with the supply of military aid, I think America will be faced with the preponderance of the cost.
I'm sure you are right about the rest of the world not giving as it should, but they really should for both moral and political reasons. The moral argument is obvious. Politically, do they want to always take a back seat to the US? Do they want to be perceived by other nations as being unwilling, or maybe reluctant, to shoulder a share of the burden of keeping the world safe?
I’m with you on the moral obligation, but countries don’t seem to work that way. Ultimately it gets down to “what’s in it for us.” But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider the humans who are caught up in these conflicts.
I realize we aren’t the “super power” we used to be, but it’s interesting that a lot of countries still look to and can count on the U.S. lending a hand. I’m not sure there is a disaster where we don’t help in some way.
But, the other part of all of this is it’s obvious that China, Russia and the Middle East have goals, and they want more power. It really is in our best interest to stay involved whether we want to or not.
I agree, and I also think we need to understand that it’s a cost we will pay one way or another. I’d rather we pay now, with the hopes of stabilizing Europe. They impact our economy just as much as we do.
I was going to write that your early sentence, "The moral choice... is equally difficult" was incorrect but then I read your last line and I think you made it clear that there is a clear moral imperative.
I don't like the application of the Pottery Barn Rule in this case. I think it is a twisted stretch. However, I think we have an enormous moral obligation just as human beings, not because we prolonged the war. Applying the PB rule suggests we might have chosen not to help Ukraine and while that was a theoretical choice, I think we were compelled by both morality and world politics to lend assistance. If we made a mistake, it was in not doing more sooner and I still think we should do more sooner. We should help rebuild for the same reasons -- morality and world politics, though I prefer it be the former that really drives us.
When my grandson was young, I often taught him that we should do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do. Adding other rationales may help us drum up support, but the reason to do the right thing is really just because it is the right thing to do. The truth of this is quite simple. It is the politics that make it messy.
Certainly V Zelenskyy bears a large part of responsibility for all the death and destruction in Ukraine.
My thought is that all of the politicians and actors and neocons stuffing their pockets with the unaccounted for money that the US keeps sending should pay to clean it up and rebuild. Leave US taxpayers alone. Many of us wanted no part of this war. Just look for the politicians with bulging pockets. Have we not meddled in our countries’ affairs enough? Why don’t we ever learn? Oh that’s right-people and businesses are getting filthy rich.
Unfortunately, some people will always look to steal in any way they can. Knowing some of the rebuilding cost will be stolen has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with the moral and political imperatives to help in the rebuilding. It just means that, sadly, some money will be wasted in the process.
Zelensky bears some responsibility for the death and destruction? I believe it was his country that was attacked. Responsibility rests on Russia. Full stop.
Let me give you another ❤️ for that!
I think your thoughts on this need to be taken seriously. Personally, I don’t see Zelensky as bearing a large part of the responsibility. I doubt that most of his countrymen thought this was going to be without a lot of sacrifice, and why should we expect the Ukrainians to just throw up their arms, and welcome the Russian invaders. Because, that’s what they are, invaders.
Yes, there has been a lot of corruption, but I see Zelensky acknowledging that, and working to remove those people. He’s not going to get them all, and there will always be corruption, as well as people getting rich off of others’ misery. If that was our criteria for helping those in need, then we might as well give up.
Yes, we should help them. It’s not just about being humanitarians, it’s also about stabilizing things, and helping to create a healthy ally.
Thanks, David. I hope you get more comments; this is an important topic.
We made the right choice in supporting the defense of Ukraine. That doesn't mean that it was a perfect choice. No choice is. The moral choice you offer us about rebuilding Ukraine is equally difficult. Given the underlying state of the American economy, can we afford to do what we should? If so, what's the tradeoff? How about Europe and GB. Don't they have an enormous obligation as well? We chose to help defend Ukraine for their sakes as much as Ukraine's. Yet, all of these issues, and the many others like them, pale in front of the grieving and the destruction that surrounds them. I don't know what all of our options are and even if I did, I wouldn't be confident of the right thing to do. I'm not sure that any sane person would be. Even so, we must make choices and we must do something. Maybe paying for the whole thing is the moral imperative and maybe it isn't - but doing as much as we can, as fast as we can, for as many as we can absolutely is.
We will certainly call upon the rest of NATO to do their part, but as with the supply of military aid, I think America will be faced with the preponderance of the cost.
I'm sure you are right about the rest of the world not giving as it should, but they really should for both moral and political reasons. The moral argument is obvious. Politically, do they want to always take a back seat to the US? Do they want to be perceived by other nations as being unwilling, or maybe reluctant, to shoulder a share of the burden of keeping the world safe?
I’m with you on the moral obligation, but countries don’t seem to work that way. Ultimately it gets down to “what’s in it for us.” But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider the humans who are caught up in these conflicts.
I realize we aren’t the “super power” we used to be, but it’s interesting that a lot of countries still look to and can count on the U.S. lending a hand. I’m not sure there is a disaster where we don’t help in some way.
But, the other part of all of this is it’s obvious that China, Russia and the Middle East have goals, and they want more power. It really is in our best interest to stay involved whether we want to or not.
I agree, and I also think we need to understand that it’s a cost we will pay one way or another. I’d rather we pay now, with the hopes of stabilizing Europe. They impact our economy just as much as we do.
I was going to write that your early sentence, "The moral choice... is equally difficult" was incorrect but then I read your last line and I think you made it clear that there is a clear moral imperative.
I don't like the application of the Pottery Barn Rule in this case. I think it is a twisted stretch. However, I think we have an enormous moral obligation just as human beings, not because we prolonged the war. Applying the PB rule suggests we might have chosen not to help Ukraine and while that was a theoretical choice, I think we were compelled by both morality and world politics to lend assistance. If we made a mistake, it was in not doing more sooner and I still think we should do more sooner. We should help rebuild for the same reasons -- morality and world politics, though I prefer it be the former that really drives us.
When my grandson was young, I often taught him that we should do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do. Adding other rationales may help us drum up support, but the reason to do the right thing is really just because it is the right thing to do. The truth of this is quite simple. It is the politics that make it messy.