[Goose]

Interesting article in Foreign Affairs about the state of the war:  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/u...-offensive.

Consistent with observations here, the article notes that Russia long ago gave up the pretense that it was merely seeking to keep Ukrainian cities intact, but put those cities and their people under "rightful" Russian control.  Russia no longer even attempts to hide that the goal is total destruction of Ukraine.  The "capture" of a city simply means that all the buildings have been destroyed and all the citizens have fled.  As a result, the article rightly notes that even the maximalist plans for rebuilding Ukraine would not restore the Donbas to the industrial powerhouse that it was before the war (or anything remotely close to that).

The Donbas was not anything like an "industrial powerhouse" before the war. It was a heavily depressed "rust belt" with no real prospects of an alternative future. From the article:

Under Soviet rule, especially under Stalin, the region became a center for metallurgy and mining through an enormous level of harsh Soviet planning. Heavily mined, polluted, and now filled with spent ammunition, the region cannot return to that past.

That "harsh level of Soviet planning" created a metals industry that was heavily embedded in the Soviet Union. Its factories were never efficient and competitive even when new. By the late 1980 they were terminally obsolete and continued to function at all only because the state controlled where things were built and at what price. In addition, over 50% of the Soviet economy involved various product transfers from one State-owned enterprise to another. Paraphrasing an administrator in a Donbas coal company just after Ukraine became independent: "Before, I sent a requisition to Moscow for shoring timber. I didn't know what it cost. It would just show up when I ordered it. It may not be quite what I ordered, but we could make do. Now I have to buy it. It is enormously expensive and I have to find a company that will supply it to me. Most of these companies are in Russia and are very hard to deal with. Right now we are shut down because we have no shoring material. I have no idea when we will re-open."

In short, the Donbas was already Pittsburgh except many years delayed.  Their "natural" partner was Russia which was now a "foreign country" that had equally large economic problems. Donbas economically went downhill even faster than it already was. Little of its industry still functioned and that which did wasn't making money. They were also part of a country that offered no way to re-orient the local economy and produce renewed growth. This is one reason that many people, both ethnic Russians and also Ukrainians, in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast were actually supportive of the "little green men" in 2014. They were better off under Soviet rule and felt re-unification with Russia was a "good idea".

To me, the takeaway is that, even if Ukraine survives, the country will not be what it once was.  The entire Donbas will be littered with unexploded mines and ordinances, not to mention exploded shells of former homes and other buildings.  That will mean a redistribution of the population geographically and a reallocation of economic resources to different types of production.  Ukraine will suffer from lower standards of living than in the past, which of course means much lower standards of living than any other country in Europe.  But what is the alternative?

The vast majority of the "reallocation of economic resources" had already happened by 2014. The "reallocation" was simply a reduction. Much of Donbas became "worthless" economically. Ukraine already had descended to "lower standards" of living  particularly in the Donbas. It happened well before the war started. The redistribution of population already had happened to a degree, but not as much as one might expect. Many young people did leave, but this was greatly mitigated by the fact that there wasn't really anywhere in Ukraine that was obviously stronger economically to attract them. Many left the country entirely. The older people felt they were too old to start over and would be living on state pensions anyway. Living in small Donbas villages was about as cheap as one could find.

Yes, Donbas is and will be an economically depressed area after the war, no matter how it "ends". It was that well before the war. The war has resulted in immense destruction of property there. The mines and unexploded ordinance will indeed be very problematic. However, that situation was true in northern France at the end of WWI and certainly true in much of eastern Europe at the end of WWII. Those places recovered relatively quickly. Not every small town was rebuilt, but many were. "Location, Location, Location" still applied. For many people, all they own is the land where their destroyed home or business was. They are very motivated to rebuild.

Also, if Ukraine were to reach the same conclusion that the article did, won't the people also decide that it makes sense to enter into a treaty that gives Russia a significant portion of the land that will not be particularly useful or populated for many years, if ever?

No. The same argument could be applied to Russia. Why would Russia want the Donbas even if Ukraine gave it to them? The Russian side of the border has similar economic problems. Why make it worse? I am guessing that maybe Putin thinks that reunification will "fix" all these problems. Obviously, it won't. The clock cannot be turned back. Steel production is not a "growth industry", particularly when your infrastructure is obsolete and you must follow strict environmental regulations.  I made this exact argument early on in this war. It was never about economics. It still isn't. There are people all over this planet fighting and dying in wars that will not benefit them economically.

[Goose]

Interesting article in Foreign Affairs about the state of the war:  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/u...-offensive.

Consistent with observations here, the article notes that Russia long ago gave up the pretense that it was merely seeking to keep Ukrainian cities intact, but put those cities and their people under "rightful" Russian control.  Russia no longer even attempts to hide that the goal is total destruction of Ukraine.  The "capture" of a city simply means that all the buildings have been destroyed and all the citizens have fled.  As a result, the article rightly notes that even the maximalist plans for rebuilding Ukraine would not restore the Donbas to the industrial powerhouse that it was before the war (or anything remotely close to that).

The Donbas was not anything like an "industrial powerhouse" before the war. It was a heavily depressed "rust belt" with no real prospects of an alternative future. From the article:

Under Soviet rule, especially under Stalin, the region became a center for metallurgy and mining through an enormous level of harsh Soviet planning. Heavily mined, polluted, and now filled with spent ammunition, the region cannot return to that past.

That "harsh level of Soviet planning" created a metals industry that was heavily embedded in the Soviet Union. Its factories were never efficient and competitive even when new. By the late 1980 they were terminally obsolete and continued to function at all only because the state controlled where things were built and at what price. In addition, over 50% of the Soviet economy involved various product transfers from one State-owned enterprise to another. Paraphrasing an administrator in a Donbas coal company just after Ukraine became independent: "Before, I sent a requisition to Moscow for shoring timber. I didn't know what it cost. It would just show up when I ordered it. It may not be quite what I ordered, but we could make do. Now I have to buy it. It is enormously expensive and I have to find a company that will supply it to me. Most of these companies are in Russia and are very hard to deal with. Right now we are shut down because we have no shoring material. I have no idea when we will re-open."

In short, the Donbas was already Pittsburgh except many years delayed.  Their "natural" partner was Russia which was now a "foreign country" that had equally large economic problems. Donbas economically went downhill even faster than it already was. Little of its industry still functioned and that which did wasn't making money. They were also part of a country that offered no way to re-orient the local economy and produce renewed growth. This is one reason that many people, both ethnic Russians and also Ukrainians, in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast were actually supportive of the "little green men" in 2014. They were better off under Soviet rule and felt re-unification with Russia was a "good idea".

To me, the takeaway is that, even if Ukraine survives, the country will not be what it once was.  The entire Donbas will be littered with unexploded mines and ordinances, not to mention exploded shells of former homes and other buildings.  That will mean a redistribution of the population geographically and a reallocation of economic resources to different types of production.  Ukraine will suffer from lower standards of living than in the past, which of course means much lower standards of living than any other country in Europe.  But what is the alternative?

The vast majority of the "reallocation of economic resources" had already happened by 2014. The "reallocation" was simply a reduction. Much of Donbas became "worthless" economically. Ukraine already had descended to "lower standards" of living  particularly in the Donbas. It happened well before the war started. The redistribution of population already had happened to a degree, but not as much as one might expect. Many young people did leave, but this was greatly mitigated by the fact that there wasn't really anywhere in Ukraine that was obviously stronger economically to attract them. Many left the country entirely. The older people felt they were too old to start over and would be living on state pensions anyway. Living in small Donbas villages was about as cheap as one could find.

Yes, Donbas is and will be an economically depressed area after the war, no matter how it "ends". It was that well before the war. The war has resulted in immense destruction of property there. The mines and unexploded ordinance will indeed be very problematic. However, that situation was true in northern France at the end of WWI and certainly true in much of eastern Europe at the end of WWII. Those places recovered relatively quickly. Not every small town was rebuilt, but many were. "Location, Location, Location" still applied. For many people, all they own is the land where their destroyed home or business was. They are very motivated to rebuild.

Also, if Ukraine were to reach the same conclusion that the article did, won't the people also decide that it makes sense to enter into a treaty that gives Russia a significant portion of the land that will not be particularly useful or populated for many years, if ever?

No. The same argument could be applied to Russia. Why would Russia want the Donbas even if Ukraine gave it to them? The Russian side of the border has similar economic problems. Why make it worse? I am guessing that maybe Putin thinks that reunification will "fix" all these problems. Obviously, it won't. The clock cannot be turned back. Steel production is not a "growth industry", particularly when your infrastructure is obsolete and you must follow strict environmental regulations.  I made this exact argument early on in this war. It was never about economics. It still isn't. There are people all over this planet fighting and dying in wars that will not benefit them economically.