Journalist Serhiy Lyamets expressed his thoughts and concerns about the so-called Marshall Plan for Ukraine.
A few thoughts about the Marshall Plan for Ukraine
I also dream that hundreds of billions will be poured into Ukraine, and we will live. But in terms of critical thinking, these are our dreams. And we must look at ourselves through THEIR eyes.
Inconvenient moments immediately pop up here:
The Marshall Plan was not a project of economic philanthropists. It was a defense project – to stop the expansion of the USSR at the height of the Cold War. To do this, they chose a progressive method – geopolitical, economic and cultural war. Diplomacy, rules and prosperity fight communism much better than a thousand words.
Does the collective West see a threat in Russian expansion? As you know, not all. The top EU states see a much greater threat in inflation and “humiliation of Putin.” For them, Russia is not such an obvious evil as for Ukraine, the Baltic countries and Poland.
Conclusion: there is no unity in the ranks of the marshallists. No one to start a big project with. Yes, and there is no need. Just then, everyone will slow down, telling tales about corruption in Ukraine.
We need to think hard about motivation. Something new is to be invented.
Alternatively, the motivation could be the strengthening of Poland and the Baltic states in order to weaken the old Europe. Ukraine is here as part of a new economic space.
Another option is to squeeze Russia out of global markets and take its place. To eventually grab her resources. But there is a minus: in this situation, Ukraine is needed like a tar scarecrow – so that the Russian bear constantly threatens us, and in response receives new sanctions. With such a strategy, it is beneficial for the West not to secure Ukraine, but to make us deliberately weak. I've seen it all somewhere before.
And of course, a good option is to prevent China from grabbing Russia's gigantic natural resources. But what does Ukraine have to do with it?
As you can see, there are a lot of options. But none of them suggests that Ukraine needs to be urgently built. All this is not good for us. We urgently need to come up with our own
The West is already thinking about how Ukraine will be restored.
2. What is the economic motivation of the West to invest in Ukraine?
I don't see it yet either. I'll make a bold guess. I have been following US economic policy for a long time. It is brilliant and consists in the constant creation of points of growth for YOUR economy. Lend-Lease was such a point of growth. In the 1940s, the US economy literally exploded with growth and displaced the British Empire as the world's leading economy. And when the war ended, Lend-Lease became a non-working tool. There was a risk of collapse of the US economy. Then they came up with the Marshall Plan. It made it possible to prevent a deep collapse of the US economy after the end of the Lend-Lease project.
Now we look at Ukraine and ask the question – what is the economic motivation of donors? Why should they allocate huge amounts of money from their own budgets? The answer is approximately clear: there is no such motivation. I don't believe in the good heart of Macron and Scholz.
One more thing. Why should they build a powerful economy in Ukraine? To compete with Europe? To create a competitor to China? Long and difficult, and why? China already exists.
So, of course, they will help us, but not much. At first, the States and Europe can load their companies to supply equipment, fuel, and weapons to Ukraine. And then – yourself.
On the other hand, why take money out of state budgets, if you can send the money of world corporations to Ukraine? Let them pour billions here and make a profit. This means that conditions must be created for them. So we move on to the next item:
3. New rules for Ukraine.
The Marshall Plan was the imposition of new rules of life in exchange for help. It was the beginning of globalization. The beginning of the dominance of the dollar (instead of the pound). The beginning of uniform rules of trade. The beginning of uniform standards for the work of the industry.
By investing a lot, the States got an insane amount: a gigantic market in Europe, a gigantic currency market dominated by the dollar, gigantic opportunities for waging economic wars. In fact, the developed countries of the world sing in chorus, and Washington conducts the concert.
Looking at Ukraine, we must admit that in terms of globalization, we are a very small target. To get grain and oil, it is enough to open the sea. The sales market is large (33 million people), but not enough to strain for it. Therefore, we will be offered a choice that we cannot refuse: to join the existing rules of the game of the civilized world in order to take our place of honor in the global division of labor.
Ukraine, most likely, will be allowed along the path of Iraq. No golden mountains and general employment. They will invest only in what they need us for, and always taking into account the risk of a new Russian attack. This means: agriculture (assumes access to the sea), gas fields, construction. Well, IT people. In sum, it turns out a small number of jobs for Ukrainians. So far, I don’t see how the problem of migrant workers will be solved – Ukrainians will probably continue to go for strawberries. Depopulation and all that.
In practice, we will be given a hard list of tasks. For example, tight Western control over the judicial system of Ukraine, protection of Western investments, NABU and Shmabu, antitrust laws, an open market for natural resources and agriculture. Ukraine will have to surrender.
As for me, this is good. We lived under the oligarchs and thieves in power, they are not capable of anything. Any programs in the spirit of “we can do it ourselves” are not implemented because those-who-can-do it are not able to come to power. There is no request for them. There is a request for cutting. In power, there are always proteges of small-town influence groups who breed another theft. I see no way for this to change.
The NBU believes that the restoration of the Ukrainian economy will also solve other problems, including those with fluctuations in the dollar exchange rate
4. Where does the money come from?
This is the most interesting question. Our guys from near the bank have already rolled out a trillion lip to pour them into the next “Big Construction Site”. But where?
If the West spends its taxpayers' money, control will be tight. Videos can't help here.
It would be ideal to withdraw part of Russia's assets – a kind of indemnity. But even in this scenario, no one will give money to Ukraine. Most likely, they will be allowed to stimulate the economies of the United States and Europe, or to pay off debts. Why feed the Ukrainians, if you need to feed the Americans and Europeans?
Conclusion: “Big construction” will have to be done the old fashioned way, from your own budget. Release Getmantsev.
5. World civil society.
Now I will give a powerful dose of naivety. There are voters in Western countries, and these are living people who put forward demands on their politicians. Scholz has already paid the price for not wanting to help Ukraine. Macron will also pay. That is, the true allies of Ukraine are ordinary citizens of the United States and Europe.
But as soon as the war ends, people will no longer remember Ukraine. You need to keep in touch with them. How? It's time to think. It is not for nothing that the Kremlin built a network of TV channels and websites to promote its theses. If Ukraine wants to influence Western politicians, it will have to do the same. Now is the time.
General total: there will definitely be a plan. There will definitely be some money.
P.S. I didn't mention Britain here. Well, well done shaves. True, they do not have golden mountains. The Marshall Plan for Ukraine is definitely not their story.