POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE OF DISCUSSIONS IN LUGANO

The international conference in Lugano (Switzerland) on the reconstruction of Ukraine has ended. Its participants returned to their countries. Unfortunately, few people share their impressions, make sense of what they hear and see. Therefore, we are unlikely to be able to form the best possible idea about the discussions in Lugano.

We continue to publish notes about the conference of its participant Roman Sheremeta:

1.

The conference in Lugano is over. Overall, it was the right move. A plan for the development of Ukraine is needed now.

On the positive side:

1. The Ukrainian government presented its vision for the development of Ukraine.

2. Everyone agreed that the development plan should be implemented today (at least its first phase).

3. Everyone agreed that the development plan should come from Ukraine.

4. Many countries have already announced which Ukrainian regions and cities they will help to rebuild.

5. Many countries have promised quite large financial aid. Relatively small Norway pleasantly surprised – 1 billion dollars.

6. And, of course, the whole world once again unanimously declared that they support Ukraine and that Russia is evil.

I will talk about the negatives further.

2.

The conference in Lugano is over. Overall, it was the right move to start planning the recovery of Ukraine. Above, I mentioned the positives of the conference, and today I want to talk about the negatives:

1. Although the Ukrainian government presented its vision for the recovery of Ukraine, it was way too general with almost no analytics.

2. Although everyone agreed on the plan and basic principles, there was little coordination between the various partners. Different stakeholders have different visions and mechanisms for implementing the plan. Therefore, a very important question is: who will coordinate different countries, donors and investors?

3. Although most countries have promised a lot of financial assistance, some countries were simply pathetic. For example – Austria, which stated that their main assistance is that they do not block the supply of weapons to Ukraine from other countries. With such “friends” there is no need for enemies.

4. Unfortunately, there was a very weak representation from the USA side. The USA is the main supplier of weapons and financial aid to Ukraine. I am sure that the Embassy of Ukraine in the USA (Oksana Markarova) could have helped bringing a large US delegation to Lugano. This is the fault of the Ukrainian government and those who were directly planning the program.

5. The idea of direct involvement of various countries and cities in the reconstruction of specific regions and cities of Ukraine is very good. At the UA House we have been working in this format for several years. However, there was no information regarding why specific countries were matched with specific regions. Some Ukrainian governors personally wrote to me in Lugano asking why this or that country was matched with their region. I have no answer.

6. I also have a lot of questions about the program. There was almost no talk about recovery of Ukrainian education system. How do we plan to rebuild the country without engineers, mechanics, electricians, architects, program managers, etc.? Who will prepare human capital for the development of the country? I understand that ecology is important – but how could we omit education?! Without education we will not be able to implement the recovery plan.

7. Another flaw in the program was that there was almost no talk about arming Ukraine. I understand that the recovery plan is important, but there can be no complete recovery without victory, without a closed sky, without air defense. This should be spoken at every conference, in every official speech. We need heavy weapons now!

8. Finally, the mechanism of the implementation of the plan is not clear at all. Who will control the distribution of funds? How will accountability work? Will sectoral funds be created for this purpose, which will be monitored by international experts? Will it happen at the level of the regions, taking into account the decentralization reform?

Roman Sheremeta

* * *

From UWIN:

The plan for the reconstruction of Ukraine, which was discussed in Lugano, is called the “New Marshall Plan.” Judging by R. Sheremeta’s notes and other sources about what happened at the conference, this project was nowhere near the Marshall Plan.

As you know, the Marshall Plan is the plan for the reconstruction of Europe, in particular, Germany, after the Second World War. Here it is important to emphasize that this plan primarily envisaged a change in the social system. For example, it was not the Third Reich with its authoritarian-totalitarian system that was subject to reconstruction. Germany was transitioning as a new social order. It was the same in France and Italy. That is why the Marshall Plan was successful.

The reconstruction plan of Ukraine, as well as its discussion, bypasses even mentions of the urgency of structural changes. So, in fact, we are talking about the reconstruction of the housing stock, enterprises, infrastructure and other assets that were physically destroyed by the war, mainly in Soviet Ukraine. That is, the discussed plan does not provide for the replacement of the Soviet coordinate system.

This means that a significant (if not more) part of the funds provided by the countries participating in the plan will be wasted: stolen, thoughtlessly rolled into the asphalt or spent on anything, but not as intended. The thirty-year experience of building an independent Ukraine screams about this. And what will be used for its intended purpose (because it will be done with the participation of the sponsoring countries) will be put to waste later — after the European builders have gone home.

Unfortunately, such is the nature of the Soviet social system that Ukraine inherited it from the departed USSR. Yes, the USSR died a long time ago, but the traditions established by the red Bolsheviks are “successfully continued” by the “green Bolsheviks”. It was during their rule that Moscow launched a full-scale war against Ukraine. Because it was they, the “servants of the people”, who gave Putin hope for the return of Ukraine, if not to the Russian empire, then at least to the sphere of influence of the Russian Federation.

On Topic:

ПОЗИТИВИ І НЕҐАТИВИ ДИСКУСІЙ У ЛУҐАНО – УСІМ | UWIN

UKRAINE RECOVERY CONFERENCE EFFECTS | ВИСЛІДИ КОНФЕРЕНЦІЇ З ВІДБУДОВИ УКРАЇНИ – УСІМ | UWIN

PLAN TO REBUILD UKRAINE: FIRST DISAPPONTMENTS | ПЛАН ВІДБУДОВИ УКРАЇНИ: ПЕРШІ РОЗЧАРУВАННЯ – УСІМ | UWIN

NEW MARSHALL’S PLAN | НОВИЙ ПЛАН МАРШАЛЛА – УСІМ | UWIN

УКРАЇНА ПЛАТИТЬ ДУЖЕ ВИСОКУ ЦІНУ ЗА ШАНС МОДЕРНІЗАЦІЇ – УСІМ | UWIN