Naslovna poanta Michaela Robertsa je povsem na mestu. Prvič, če bodo zahodne države, ko bo konec vojne v Ukrajini, za njeno obnovo namenile predvidenih 1,000 milijard evrov (samo EU program predvideva 750 milijard evrov), bodo seveda želele povsem prevzeti nadzor nad porabo teh sredstev – torej nad tem, kaj se bo gradilo, kdo bo gradil in kako se bodo delila finančna sredstva. Ukrajina je bila in je namreč najbolj korumpirana evropska država. Drugače rečeno, gradila bodo zahodna podjetja, denar pa jim bo neposredno izplačevala Evropska investicijska banka. Drugič, poleg tega bodo zahodne države želele v Ukrajini utrditi vojaški ščit pred Rusijo in bodo od Ukrajine zahtevale visok obrambni proračun (20% BDP ?) za nakup zahodnega orožja. Katera država je lahko gospodarsko uspešna, če za potrebe obrambe vsako leto v tujini kupi vojaško opremo v vrednosti 20% BDP, namesto da bi ta denar namenila za razvoj človeškega kapitala (šolstvo in zdravstvo), industrijske in razvojne infrastrukture? Tretjič, zahodne države bodo od Ukrajine zahtevale koncesije pri uporabi najbolj vrednih ukrajinskih “sredstev”, to pa je zemlja in nekaj malega rude in mineralne kovine. Temu lahko rečete nov vzhodnoevropski Irak ali Kongo, le da ne bo šlo za nafto ali litij in kobalt, pač pa za pšenico in koruzo. In četrtič, kot vsi programi “pomoči”, bo tudi program za Ukrajino “pogojevan z reformami”, kar pa pomeni predvsem krčenje socialnih in delovnopravnih pravic. Še en neoliberalni eksperiment zahodnih “donatorjev”.
Torej, kakšna je lahko prihodnost Ukrajine kot vazalne zahodne države brez lastne avtonomije?
Of course, the other big issue in the mainstream sessions was the Russia-Ukraine conflict. This was approached from several angles: the cost to lives and infrastructure; the cost of reconstruction after the war ends; the rise in energy and food prices globally; the possible permanent changes to the geopolitical configuration of the world. Underlying all the panel discussions and papers in the mainstream sessions was the clear premise that not only must Ukraine be supported in its fight to sustain its borders and sovereignty, but this was also a fight for ‘liberal democracy’ against autocratic tyranny from Putin’s Russia.
In the main panel session, speaker after speaker started from this premise and also from the view that post the war, Ukraine should become a model capitalist democracy. This was to be achieved by massive foreign investment in the economy; by maintaining a huge military defence budget of up to 20% of GDP; and by ensuring that all investment in infrastructure and public services was directed and controlled by a European reconstruction agency that would have a veto over any projects. The latter was to ensure that corruption was avoided (remember Ukraine was regarded as the most corrupt state in Europe before the war).

You must be logged in to post a comment.