I agree Ukraine is in a very bad position, and further destruction makes recovery harder. But countries have recovered from devastating wars before. Ukraine's prospects depend on the settlement it gets and the support available afterwards.
I also don't see why Western support would simply end with the war. The
UK's ten-year agreement explicitly includes post-war support, and the
EU already funds recovery and reconstruction. Future funding is uncertain, but European governments have their own security interest in keeping Ukraine functioning.
Since we agree on negotiating now while continuing to fight, what would you have Ukraine and its backers do differently?
I am not saying funding will simply stop after the war is over, but there is no certainty there whatsoever. In my opinion, there will be a significant reduction of financial support. I do not think there is any way around it and I almost take it as fact or a default assumption that is to be proven wrong.
The first link you provided (the UK pact) only states that the UK will support the funding via the IMF and open its private financial market so that Ukraine can look for financing its recovery that way. Maybe I missed some actual commitments (as in (tens of?) billions of pounds) because I only gave it a quick surface read?
The second link (the EU reconstruction commitment) is only talks about up to €50B in reconstruction funds guarantee, including up to €33B worth of eurobonds issued by the end of 2027 to finance the reconstruction needs via a loan of which over €32B had already been disbursed (with more than a year to go to the end of the planned timeline, which shows that the needs are significant and no one has any clue). A good chunk, if not all, of these funds went down the drain due to the ongoing and constant destruction.
Therefore, everyone is careful to limit the current commitments to the ongoing hostilities. And who is going to commit to any of this? Ukrainian needs are going to be nearly 6 times the pre-war GDP of the country according to the current RDNA5 estimate. Ukraine says about 7.5 times that. Double or triple of what has been so far provided to sustain the war (?). Most of the fraction of the funds that will be needed and were committed have already been spent. New funds are hard to come by and they are urgently needed now to prevent the collapse, apply some short-lived but expensive patches to the critical infrastructure, and simply to keep the war going.
Furthermore, consider that Ukraine had never recovered from the collapse of the Soviet Union (the only former republic to be in that position). It had been over 30 years before the invasion. Why do people think (in fact, many are absolutely convinced) it will flourish after the war with no infrastructure and limited funds? But anyway…
Mind you, I do not believe that much money is required. No one is building the most modern and advanced place in the world. The bare minimum to keep functioning is what everyone should lock their expectations at. That slashes the “fairy tale” (since we are all now using this term) amounts by probably 3 if not 4.
In terms of what to do differently… It is not an easy question to answer. I can say what I think should had been done differently (and I already have previously), but that does not matter today because it serves no purpose.
First and foremost, there should be more honesty for the public to chew on. There should be no illusions and delusions about what is happening. The ridiculous KIIS polls showing that almost everyone is ready to fight to the end until all their lands are returned and Ukraine is in NATO and the EU and whatever, while people not wanting to fight are being beaten in basements, need to stop. While people are accustomed to the reality they see around, they need to get accustomed to what’s to come. Brutal, I know.
We, the backers, can do a lot more. We can start real discussions with Russia. Whether Ukraine wants it or not is not exactly relevant. They can feel betrayed, throw tantrums (do whatever they want, frankly) - more on this below. The talks should be real/serious and include issues beyond Ukraine. Whether the US is part of the talks or not should not matter much in the initial stages.
We are currently entering (or already have) a stage where things have to be deescalated. The talks of war, massive weapons build up, missiles pointed at each other, including the talks of nuclear weapons placed in the immediate proximity to Russia, where the response to
indications of a launch is becoming automatic due to the timing constraints, etc.
The thing is we have been through similar events or times before. The history shows that this situation is not stable (far from it) and it is simply inevitable that these talks will take place and some sort if resolution will emerge, regardless of what happens. Whether these talks take place after the annihilation of Ukraine (what was discussed previously) or before is up to us (and lesser extent Russia because, in my opinion, it will jump on the opportunity if it is real; but it is also us who is more interested in preservation of Ukraine and deescalation - Russia is already at war).
As for the betrayal and tantrums. In the meantime, the funding of Ukraine should continue (as long as it takes,
but whatever we can). It should be made clear that future postwar support is assured within a well-defined scope (not hundreds of billions estimated), including (partially) from the Russian funds currently frozen (according to some breakdown as agreed to with Russia). It should also be made clear to the general (particularly Ukrainian) public that infinite sustainment of the war is not in the books because it is simply impossible. It is what it is, nothing wrong with real life and reconciliation to these facts has to happen. They can think it is a betrayal, it is not; but it is also irrelevant. The situation in Ukraine should be settled as a part of a broader agreement between Russia and European countries, outside of NATO. Guarantees to Ukraine would be part of this broader security (and beyond?) agreement. If the Balts, especially, and Poles, for example, oppose, that’s their prerogative, but… not sure what to say here as your EU decision making arrangement is rather weird and way more complicated than it should be. Hence, European countries and not the EU, though some treaty with the latter is highly preferable and doable. They (those opposing) will get on board anyway because the choices they have otherwise are… well, nonexistent. It all comes to beggars cannot be choosers, basically. The United States should only play a peripheral role, but should work on a separate agreement with Russia regarding their relationship after the fact. I couldn’t care less if we (in this case Canada) participate at all and would probably prefer the not if it comes to it.
The main thing here is that we can wait for a theoretical Russian strategic defeat as long as we want/can. Ukraine does not have that luxury. There will come a time when its fate will be decided without the so called Europe. While “Russia is not ready to negotiate”, Ukraine will simply make its own arrangements with Russia because we are still waiting for the right moment.
Sure, a rather Hobbesian approach, but is it not what we are quite literally observing today? You say that the Euros have their own security interests in keeping Ukraine as a functioning state. It seems to me that the focus on that has been lost and no one knows what the (achievable) goal is. Also functioning and stable with a bright future are not the same.
If you think about it, everyone was fine with the pre-war arrangement, a hardly functioning, heading into the abyss Ukraine. All that had to be done is to formalize that on paper before the stakes went up and work from there.
www.theguardian.com
