Ukraine: The Responsibility of Rebuilding After Destruction

Postwar Gravy Train: A Boon for Economic Opportunists

The aftermath of war often presents a lucrative opportunity for those who know how to seize it. The recent devastation in Ukraine is no exception. With the country nearly destroyed, a new Postwar Gravy Train is on the horizon, promising huge government spending, relaxed oversight, and attractive prospects for savvy contractors and economic opportunists.

Last week, the US State Department made a bold move. It announced plans to confiscate Russian assets within the United States to fund Ukraine's rebuilding efforts. Despite the estimated $300 billion in Russian assets in the US and Europe, it falls short of the projected $500 billion required for the reconstruction. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was clear in his stance, stating that Russia should bear the cost of rebuilding what President Putin destroyed.

Revisiting the Pottery Barn Rule

Blinken's argument is reminiscent of the "Pottery Barn rule" – You Break It, You Own It – a principle previously invoked by Colin Powell in 2002 to caution President George W. Bush about military action in Iraq. The principle implies that the aggressor has a moral obligation to rebuild what they destroy. The difference now is the scale of the reconstruction, with American and European firms eager to rebuild a modern, high-tech Ukraine.

However, the US government's track record in managing such projects leaves much to be desired. Past experiences, such as the Coalition Provisional Authority’s work in Iraq, have been marred by no-bid contract awards, corruption, and billions of unaccounted dollars. It's a lesson that when taxpayer money is abundant, oversight is often lax, and results are disappointing. This raises questions about how the US government would handle spending Russia's money.

Confiscating Foreign Assets: A Dangerous Precedent?

Not everyone agrees with the idea of confiscating Russia's assets. Critics argue that it violates the principle of reciprocity and sets a dangerous precedent. If the US can seize foreign assets to fund reconstruction, what's to stop other countries from doing the same? What if China were to confiscate American assets to fund rebuilding in countries like Libya or Iraq, where the US has waged war?

Despite the rhetoric about the Great Power Competition and the rise of superpowers like China and Russia, the reality is that the US still sees itself as economically and militarily superior. With such power comes a disregard for the fear of reciprocity.

The Morality of Power

The elites, driven by their immediate interests and those of their corporate and investor friends, are likely to benefit from this massive international project, the largest since World War II. For them, the only morality is the morality of power. The principle of treating other nations as you would like to be treated seems to apply only to the weaker players.

Politicians like Blinken may speak of America's duty to "defend democracy" and "protect the rules-based order" in Ukraine, but these words often ring hollow. The harsh reality is that America is poised to use confiscated money to fund a massive, likely poorly managed but profitable reconstruction project. What Russia breaks, it seems, America is ready to take and rebuild.

Final Thoughts

The idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is something we all believe in. However, the actions of governments and elites often paint a different picture. Is the confiscation of foreign assets a justifiable means to an end, or does it set a dangerous precedent for international relations? What are your thoughts on this matter? Share this article with your friends and let's start a conversation. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.