You must log in or register to comment.

ShlongVonLong t1_j1umtx2 wrote

For reference, the US's GDP dropped 4.3% during 2008's Great Recession, and 30% during the Great Depression.


Alt-One-More t1_j1v5cu9 wrote

How much did European countries lose during and following WW2?


Sticky_Robot t1_j1vjy1x wrote

1938 to 1945 -> Percent of 1938 GDP in 1945. Basically in 1938 they were at 100% so the following numbers represent the loss or gain by 1945.

US -> 184%

UK -> 116%

France -> 54%

Italy -> 65%

USSR -> 95% *hit 76% at the height of Barbarossa in 1942

Germany -> 88%

Japan -> 85%

Austria -> 50%

I can't find data for Romania, Hungary, Poland, China etc. Most data comes from at best 1950 so that probably says something for how bad things got.



die_a_third_death t1_j1vkfwl wrote

Germany surprisingly a lot higher than I assumed


Sticky_Robot t1_j1vktyq wrote

I think it came down to

  1. WW2 bombers were notoriously inaccurate, it required hundreds of bombers to take out one factory.

  2. Factories of the time period were relatively simple, and could be rebuilt or just moved somewhere else.


FROOMLOOMS t1_j1vqlko wrote

Also, most machines in that Era were all analog and built of 1000's of pounds of cast steel and plate, unless a bomb smoked the thing nose on, you could largely replace the belts and machine out the pock marks/replace a shaft or two and youre golden.


sillypicture t1_j1w3wh4 wrote

wasn't there still a ginormous amount of civilian deaths to firestorms of dresden and similar?


Mrsod2007 t1_j1xrcqk wrote

Also, Germany was hit way worse by the great depression than almost any other country


OdinTheHugger t1_j209g7k wrote

There's also the factor of modern economies being largely services based, with production taking place at a massive and centralized scale.

That and the mass exodus of women and children into Poland and other surrounding countries.

Poland needs to be recognized in a big way after this war is over. They invited in over 2 million Ukrainian women and children, feeding, clothing, and housing them in arrangements that go from houses/apartments sharing with individual Polish families all the way up to mass government housing and relief shelters.

All while they're giving Ukraine everything they can spare in terms of war gear.

That's a HUGE penalty on any nations economy, and an even bigger risk in case of additional hardships.

And Poland took that on for Ukraine. It's must be a hell of a lot easier to fight a war when they know their families are safe and sound.


Alt-One-More t1_j1vqoa0 wrote

Another commenter mentioned how Germany's looting and exploitation of neighboring countries helped prop up their GDP a lot.


Ycx48raQk59F t1_j1w8lcp wrote

Its easy to forget than in end if 1944/ beginning of 1945, despite long bombing campaigns and resource shortage, miltiary production was at its peak in germany.


kehaarcab t1_j1zhvoz wrote

With 1938 as base, one has to remember that until the winter 42-43, Germany was winning and had an economy that was growing. So they lost not just 12%, but 4 years of heavy, early war buildup as well. To compare, in that same timeframe, (38-42) the US GDP grew 50%.


halee1 t1_j1vr74i wrote

And according to the Maddison series (which does differ in numbers, but let's ignore that for a moment), US economy was stagnant in the 2nd half of the 1940s thanks to the demobilization, and only surpassed its 1944 maximum in 1951. The UK economy, after mostly strong 1930s and early 1940s, fell in 1944-1947, and only reached new all-time highs in 1954, thanks to rationing resulting from practical bankruptcy and repayment of its massive debts to the US (as well as paying the ones it accumulated since the late 17th century in general).

Germany's first fall was in 1945, a whopping almost 29%, but even moreso in 1946, at the height of Germanophobia among policymakers (52.6%!), forcing it to wait until 1956 before West Germany's size became the all-time high. Austria, surprisingly, only fell in 1945, but lost nearly 60% at that, and only surpassed its 1944 level in 1953.

As for Japan, it fell about 24% each in 1945 and 1946, and only went above its 1944 maximum by 1955.

Everything else is broadly correct, even though the numbers themselves differ a bit.


sillypicture t1_j1w43tv wrote

how did france and italy get shanked so bad?

Wasn't the fighting in france largely in the open fields, and the south remained more or less untouched?

what's up with italy too? did they put everything into the african campaign?


raptorgalaxy t1_j1x6dxx wrote

The Germans looted the country during the occupation, and there were a number of city fights.


Fuzzyphilosopher t1_j1xobij wrote

The port of Brest was occupied until the end of the war. And Caen wasn't the only place that got hammered into rubble. The rail lines and locomotive stock were trashed. The nazis had deported a lot of their working age men for forced labor as well. "600,000 to 650,000 French workers were sent to Germany between June 1942 and July 1944." More than 75,000 jews were deported and 72,500 of them murdered. Military and civilians deaths were 567,600

Those kind of things really hurt your GDP. There were also quite a number fighting in Free French divisions who weren't working. This is very similar in ukraine right now. They've got men and women serving at the front and in the military who are not contributing to normal economic activity. Ukraine is fighting heroically but it comes at great cost in so many ways when your country is a warzone. That's why it's so important to continue aid in not just weapons but financial support.


Catsingasong t1_j1z2vp9 wrote

During WW2 Germany was at 88%?

C'mon, I can't be the only one appreciating the irony.


Theinternationalist t1_j1v6y7u wrote

I don't (personally) know the answer but that has to be really messy.

  • The European Empires started breaking apart at different rates, with Indonesia basically breaking off from the Netherlands immediately and thus may still have been counted "officially Dutch" even though it was de facto separated for years before independence. Even if the UK managed to somehow maintain 0% growth during the war, the loss of India would still be a huge blow.

  • Germany lost a lot of pre-Adolf land to other countries, obviously, but there were other notable landswaps such as Poland losing some to the USSR and gaining some from Germany.

  • The population transfers (between murders, deportations, and of course WAR CASUALTIES) means many of the countries weren't really the same. Ukraine actually applies well here given that many were kidnapped from their homes, some Russians were imported into the occupied territories, etc.

So while I'd confidently guess the German economy was cut by more than 2/3 and the French Hexagon might have halved, I can't personally say for sure.


wastingvaluelesstime t1_j1vfen0 wrote

There is data on this. It's not really fair to count decolonization as in reality UK and India were always separate countries, linked on a political level into an empire. War costs in the UK took the form of massive debt of 250% of GDP, with really severe austerity for several decades afterwards.

The biggest and longest lasting damage was likely just population loss, which was over 10% in a number of countries, notably Germany, Russia, and all the countries between them.


Fun-Gap4015 t1_j1v9hsm wrote

Thats a big uncited world salad to just say "idk"


ahhhhhhhhhhhhitgotme t1_j1vfj2m wrote

He said that he doesn’t know and then gave a guess that sounds way more knowledgeable than anything I could have come up with, relax


Fun-Gap4015 t1_j1wl8xz wrote

Sounds knowledgeable and being knowledgeable are two different things. I am relaxed you worry about yourself friendo


Alt-One-More t1_j1vqwxs wrote

He offers lots of other interesting and related information to help you imagine the context of their economies at the time.


nautilius87 t1_j1w1q2u wrote

For some countries, it is probably impossible to count by GDP. GDP is only one-year long indicator, when Poland lost 38% of total wealth, over 50% of industry, Warsaw reduced to rubble (85% of city, 90% of industry), over 50% of all infrastructure. Poland lost 45% of it's prewar territory to USSR and got about 33% from Germany (it was almost a desert - Red Army stole anything worthy and population fled), there were huge population loss and swap. Poland 1939 and Poland 1945 are basically two different countries.

Official number of GDP lost between 1939 and 1945 is 55%.


halee1 t1_j1vowo8 wrote

Different countries (un)developed differently in WW2, depending on the year. US and UK grew quite a lot during the war, but GDP started to falter towards the end (keep in mind a lot of that was military and foodstuff aid, and in the US that led to shortages in the stores and budget deficits reaching as high as about 27% in yearly terms, as we don't have quarterly data available), despite the highest growth rates in the history of the country, and were somewhat depressed in the first years after it. Germany also made out relatively good before 1945, thanks to the looting from the countries it occupied, slave labor and military spending in general, before it fell by 29% in 1945 and nearly 53% in 1946.

Economies like France, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Greece and obviously the USSR, were being exploited or utterly destroyed in the process, while other Nazi-occupied ones like Denmark, Norway and Belgium also suffered a lot at the beginning, but surprisingly grew during the 2nd half of the war.

That'll tell you the effect (in GDP per capita) on those countries.


pppjurac t1_j1vl4o0 wrote

Austria got it bad, half down.

Balkans was even worse.


IrNinjaBob t1_j1wel0i wrote

I feel like those aren’t one to one comparisons though. Both of those instances weren’t the result of huge decreases in their population. The drop in GDP in Ukraine isn’t necessarily because all of the same people are still present, and are just producing less. It’s because huge swaths of their populations have fled the country.

Regardless I’m not saying a 30% drop in GDP is a good or neutral thing. Just that I don’t think that comparison really tells us as much as it seems to.


AzureDreamer t1_j1y2jtd wrote

I am sure our GDP would take a larger hit if we were invaded by the next 10 peer powers. Not meant to be a joke the US military is insanely goatee in terms of power and experience.


dbratell t1_j1ufdgh wrote

While good news, it's still terrible. :(


Sticky_Robot t1_j1vivl0 wrote

Not as bad as it sounds. That GDP loss isn't from cities being leveled it's from people fleeing the country / the front lines. After the war ends a lot of those people will return and the GDP will bounce back. Factories can be rebuilt, raw resources are still in the ground etc. Add in the likely western marshal plan to rebuild and Ukraine could come back stronger than ever.


Vertitto t1_j1vn2be wrote

as long as the funds will be used well. Both Ukrainians and EU/other donators should control each penny and punish misuse harshly


UnapologeticBritish t1_j1vnce3 wrote

Well, the political will is there. One large contributor for this war was the ousting of previous corrupt russia-alighned governments.


Vertitto t1_j1vnzhq wrote

that can switch quickly once funds start flowing. It was (and still is) a problem in EU, it will be a big check for Ukraine as it was much longer under super corrupt system


Schyte96 t1_j1wbxsk wrote

Could be a really interesting EU readiness test if you think about it.


thatsme55ed t1_j1w1bfc wrote

Hopefully the fact that a significant proportion of the people in the country are trained and experienced in violence as a problem solving method will actually be a stabilizing factor.

Normal corruption methods don't work when you have to worry the person you're trying to swindle has an AK47 in their closet. When the GI's returned to America from WW2 there was at least one instance of them clearing out a corrupt local government the hard way.


Vertitto t1_j1wmoiu wrote

it can also work the other way - war ends, infrastructure is ruined, lot of potential shady people as ton of people/docuemnts are lost, many home companies are killed off by foreign corporations or getting bought, ton of scams pop up when big money starts to flow, lot of weapons everywhere and thousands of people with military trauma

It's a prime environment for organised crime, it can be '90s all over again


thatsme55ed t1_j1wxmzl wrote

Yeah that's possible, but the influx of money after will help stabilize Ukraine like the Marshall plan. South Korea after the Korean War and Europe after WW2 show it's possible to avoid a full on collapse of society if you give people funds, hope and a plan.

The 90's was a collapse because the entire system collapsed into total anarchy after the internal rot reached the tipping point. No one knew who to trust or how to make things work.

Ukraine has friends, access to Europe, access to credit, easy access to the internet and information, a charismatic leader and a population that is motivated to build back better.

It's not guaranteed of course, but corruption by definition involves stealing from the many to benefit the few. When the many are trained, disciplined and motivated it's a lot harder to do that.


TROPtastic t1_j1wfgao wrote

Corruption in Ukraine deserves a lot of scrutiny, for sure. Fortunately, Ukraine has an active and resilient network of civil activists that the EU/outside NGOs can help, instead of trying to build an anti-corruption culture from scratch.


mothtoalamp t1_j1w9yae wrote

Aversion to Russian influence will likely be at an all time high when reconstruction begins. That should help somewhat.


1MoralHazard t1_j1vqb28 wrote

The inherent selfishhness that drives corruption is often set aside during times of collective trauma. Your neighbor suffered just as much as you when you had to cower in the hallways during the raid sirens as the missiles annihilated the playground outside. As terrible as this has been, this will rebuild a certain comraderie that was destroyed by years of engrained soviet "individualism".


MyGoodOldFriend t1_j1vvemy wrote

Nope. Corruption does not die during times of struggle. I can’t think of a single historical example.

The conception that “common struggle brings out the best in us” is largely from the event turning into a national story. The blitz, for example, was characterized by an epidemic of crime and chaos - which was turned into a simplistic story about a stiff upper lip in the postwar years.


porncrank t1_j1y70ys wrote

You're right and wrong. Which isn't that surprising when talking about something as broad and complex as human society. There's no question that people can and often do band together and help each other during times of suffering. There are countless examples. It's just that not all people do. Even in the most cohesive societies helping each other out there are always corrupt and selfish individuals -- opportunists preying on the rest. They will always be there.

So when hard times come, the majority of common people work together to survive. But they do so under attack from a handful of shitty people that can only think to enrich themselves.


MyGoodOldFriend t1_j1y7mji wrote

Yeah, exactly. The point is that societal problems don’t go away in times of a common struggle. Like corruption during an invasion, or crime during the blitz. There was and is plenty of good that comes out, though - of course.


osuvetochka t1_j1wgtgx wrote

I’m curious why do you believe that a lot of people who fled will go back?


stjornmala_junkie t1_j1wn5p3 wrote

Yeah, it historically says otherwise, and I don't blame people for not wanting to move back


BurialA12 t1_j1xuye0 wrote

Ukraine before 2022 already had the largest % of diaspora


Thrilling1031 t1_j1von0a wrote

If the EU and NATO are worth their salt, the rebuilding of Ukraine needs to be incredible. They need to show the value in being an ally if they want to keep their members and alliances strong. It one thing to sanction and condemn Russia, providing weapons is great, but if ultimately Ukraine comes out of this worse, then what good do those alliances truly offer?


Alchemist2121 t1_j1w57oa wrote

The EU is debt trapping Ukraine with loans not grants. US is giving the money, the EU is loaning it


MistarGrimm t1_j1wwlsf wrote

The us is pretty clear the stuff isn't free. They're lenient, but not that lenient.


Phytanic t1_j1xc7hm wrote

a lot it IS free though. You can argue all you want about "the implication" of it, but it's quite literally grants and aid. Yes, lend-lease isn't free, but the vast majority of stuff thus far has not been loans


FellowTraveler69 t1_j1wqtv8 wrote

A good chunk of those who left aren't coming back. My gut says anywhere from 1/3 to 1/4. That all depends though on how fast the conflict resolves. The longer the wat goes on, the more refugees will establish new lives in the West and have less incentives to go back. To be cynical, a large amount of young people may benefit from the war, as it allowed them to immigrate easily to far wealthier countries with greater opportunities in the West.


Murky-Ad-1982 t1_j1wdfo5 wrote

Its pretty bad if the war is prolonged since ukraine would rely on western side to keep the economy going and you know people are gonna complain about that.


TPconnoisseur t1_j1wirvf wrote

They will be the next South Korea, possibly more so.


Throwaway_g30091965 t1_j1wujzn wrote

I'm hopefully wrong, but it's really skeptical to see if Ukraine can economically recover quickly from the war or even achieving their equivalent of East Asian economic miracle.

First, the current demographic of Ukraine is worlds apart compared to East Asian countries in the 60s-70s (After WWII and other Asian Wars). The latter have had demographic pyramids resembling more of present day African nations while the former has a demographic pyramid resembling more of Western European nations. We've known the fact that demographic balance is a great predictor of economic success, which means that Ukraine's economy potential has already been crippled in this front

Second, the proximity of Ukraine to wealthy countries that are happily accepting Ukrainian immigrants also hindered their economy growth. Compared this to East Asia back after the war, when their immigrants need to cross continents and oceans to settle in wealthy countries, since all of their neighboring nations were also war torn and poverty stricken, which means that a lot of them stayed to rebuilt their country. A comparison of wages shows that even being a hard laborer in Western Europe yield better wages than working as a mid-level white collar professional in Ukraine. So rationally, why would you stay in Ukraine after settling in other European countries? They have already been bleeding population since the fall of Soviet Union, and I don't think this trend will reverse at all.


abecido t1_j1xwmrs wrote

> After the war ends

Why would the war end?


Gorge_Lorge t1_j1uqa3p wrote

I think the US alone has sent more than 1/3 of Ukraine’s gdp in aid.


Shuber-Fuber t1_j1uvqxa wrote

Mostly military thou, doesn't help the economy outside of stopping Russia from causing more damage.


Gorge_Lorge t1_j1v1bgv wrote

Oh yeah, I get that. Crazy amount of money comparatively was all. Got curious about their gdp a few weeks ago. Then went down a rabbit hole of how gdp is calculated….ahhh the internet.


Shuber-Fuber t1_j1v6t9z wrote

Another crazy part is that a vast majority of that "crazy amount of money" doesn't cost the US in the traditional sense.

Think of donating old clothes to Goodwill, that's essentially what a lot of US donations are, stuff we don't actually need and would've pay to dismantle/dispose of in some way anyway a few years down the line.

And a lot of newer stuff is in manufacturing sector that the US would've paid for anyway for other purposes to keep them operating. We paid for Abrams tanks that the Army specifically said they don't need more of just to keep the production lines running. So a lot of stuff we gave to Ukraine could be chalk up to "stuff we would've paid for anyway for other reasons". Russia's invasion just gives the US a better reason than "we need to keep MIC operating".


puroloco t1_j1vb3nf wrote

It's crazy we don't give them tanks. Thanks that they have built and we don't need.


Sarkelias t1_j1vbttk wrote

We still might, but it'd be a total change in equipment for them - all of their practice, training, tooling and ammunition is for variants of Soviet tanks. US tanks would represent a total change in that and NATO countries would have to supply all of the ammunition for them - I'd imagine that's why NATO countries like Poland have been dumping their T-72s into Ukraine, they were planning to get rid of them anyway and they're easier for UA to use.


tuigger t1_j1vky4j wrote

The current Abrams tank used by the US uses an extremely fuel demanding gas turbine engine which puts a big liability in the logistics chain.

It also requires a lot of training and different ammo/parts than what the Ukrainians produce/have.

The Ukrainians are better off without Abrams tanks.


Sarkelias t1_j1vn76x wrote

Yeah, the increased fuel consumption would probably also be an issue, plus a higher personnel requirement with 4 crew instead of 3 for the 64/72/80s. With that in mind, the best new armor for Ukraine would probably be K2s from SK/Poland, down the line - at least they'd have similar crew and fuel requirements.


Miraclefish t1_j1vbzfr wrote

They don't really need or want tanks, though. For the kind of fighting that's happening in Ukraine, they're mostly death traps.

What's more, US-built tanks aren't usable, they would need months to years of training and infrastructure for maintenance and servicing.

Besides, Russia has abandoned far more empty tanks than Ukraine has lost and they're Soviet models that Ukraine utilises anyway.

What they really need is longer range artillery and rockets, anti air defence systems and so on, which is what they're being given.


Successful_Prior_267 t1_j1vmv2j wrote

They are literally begging for tanks lmao


LAVATORR t1_j1vnujv wrote

Yeah, they also beg for fighter jets, but whether or not they're an optimal use of resources is a whole other question.

Way too many people think this is Civilization and you can just teleport in advanced tech for a quick and easy win. Real life is much more complicated.


Miraclefish t1_j1vwkke wrote

Yes, compatible ones that their armed forces are trained to operate and they have supply lines and servicing capability for.

That is categorically not NATO ones, but T- model tanks from other Eastern Bloc nations.


Roflcopter_Rego t1_j1vr9fp wrote

> They don't really need or want tanks, though. For the kind of fighting that's happening in Ukraine, they're mostly death traps.

This is honestly a bunch of crap. I'd be interested to know what has made you formulate this idea.

The way Russia used tanks for the first 3 months - YOLOing down highways with no intel or infantry - is obviously massively wasteful and not what Ukraine should be doing. Using tanks the way Russia is now, by hardening or attacking trench formations, is very useful.

Ukraine want tanks, and having tanks would reduce casualties. You're right it's not top of the list, or even second or third (artillery is top of the list, missiles are second, AA is third) but it is certainly on the list.


Miraclefish t1_j1vwf7k wrote

Western tanks are of absolutely no use to them for countless logistical reasons, which is why they aren't being requested or offered by NATO nations.


Roflcopter_Rego t1_j1vwrov wrote

> For the kind of fighting that's happening in Ukraine, they're mostly death traps.

So this is untrue, yes?

The "correct" reason is in fact:

>Western tanks are of absolutely no use to them for countless logistical reasons

Do you want to edit your original post to clarify or...?


Miraclefish t1_j1vwwfi wrote

No, both are true and aren't mutually exclusive. Thanks for playing, bye.


Roflcopter_Rego t1_j1vx9ye wrote

Usually I'd blow it off, but honestly that rhetoric is dangerous if it becomes a common consensus. Please stop spreading unsourced misinformation, especially when you know the actual and correctly sourced information and post that also.


vba7 t1_j1vkw84 wrote

USA is nor sending money but military equipment. This sounds like some advanced propaganda.


Adam-West t1_j1v86a4 wrote

Wartime economy is an odd one anyway. Lots of stuff that counts towards GDP but doesn’t actually improve people’s lives in a normal context. Like theoretically you could have a great GDP based off the production of military equipment but you spend it all on the front lines and don’t have enough leftover for food.


Sinaaaa t1_j1v96uc wrote

> GDP but doesn’t actually improve people’s lives in a normal context.

That's just how GDP is in general.


Adam-West t1_j1v9dzd wrote

Yeah but we use it as a metric like this is under the assumption that as a whole higher GDP = Higher quality of life even though it’s far from perfect


adashko997 t1_j1vbpvk wrote

Honestly I don't see that very often. Except for some comments on a Reddit thread some time ago about California breaking yet another nominal GDP record taking this as proof that the state is a fantastic place to live even though GDP doesn't mean shit in this context.


Redpanther14 t1_j1v5ldx wrote

Actually, most US aid has been economic aid in the form of relatively low-interest loans IIRC.


GoodAndHardWorking t1_j1v6u2s wrote

Are the loans not earmarked to go right back to US defense contractors?


Redpanther14 t1_j1v7f62 wrote

No, western countries have been providing billions of dollars of loans to Ukraine each month to make sure that the country doesn’t completely fall apart. Most weapons provided to Ukraine by the US have been drawdowns of government stocks (which I doubt repayment for is expected, although I do not know the finer details).


patrick66 t1_j1v9i6t wrote

Nah they’re true loans. When we give other countries money to buy weapons from us it’s almost exclusively grant money not loans, but for obvious reasons we aren’t even doing that step here. mostly the us is largely just dealing with the contractors directly


IronEngineer t1_j1v9zmj wrote

A large amount is not. Despite the meme that the USis only supporting the defense industry, they are doing a lot to help Ukraine through this. True economic and humanitarian aid has come in large numbers.


KhorseWaz t1_j1vhjjg wrote

Good lord, the US is truly a behemoth.


tuigger t1_j1vls8z wrote

Never underestimate how much the United States likes making weapons.


czartaylor t1_j1wrqe5 wrote

You don't appreciate why it's good to have the US as a friend until you need to fight a war. We keep our friends in Gucci in that department.


ArchmageXin t1_j1xayp4 wrote


Just like South Vietnam--oh wait they don't exist anymore.

Just like Afghanistan---oh wait they are under religious zealots.

Just like the kurds---like 5 times?


czartaylor t1_j1xbkyr wrote

All of which were surviving wars they should not have been.....right up until the US stopped helping lol.

The fact that in pretty much all 3 cases the collapse came right after the US pulled out is pretty good sign of what was going on.


FrozenInsider t1_j1vrpub wrote

Well, Ukraine has a tiny GDP. Back in 2000, it was below $40 billion.


[deleted] t1_j1v42bl wrote



adashko997 t1_j1vc886 wrote

Yeah Ukraine is extremely corrupt, even Belarus has much higher GDP per capita even though it's just a Russian satellite state. If Ukraine ever wants to join the west, this is the very first thing they have to tackle, yet they haven't done much so far. Here in Poland lots of people who would never pass our driving test simply go to Ukraine to buy themselves a license because of how ridiculously easy it is there.

This wikipedia article sums it all up quite well.


die_a_third_death t1_j1vktx8 wrote

Corruption perception index suggests Ukraine is slowly becoming less and less corrupt every year and things have only gotten better since Euromaidan.


adashko997 t1_j1vnvxp wrote

It only went down a bit between 2013 and 2018. Between 2018 and 2021, they made effectively no progress.


phibulous1618 t1_j1vfnxg wrote

They've seen a large increase in their production of dead Russian soldiers


JimmyEDI t1_j1va5kw wrote

I presume that Ukraine has factored this into the $300bn aid it requires for rebuilding.


AwkwardPregame t1_j1vtysd wrote

I can’t wait until they start exporting dead Russian artifacts and military memorabilia. I’d love to pay a Ukrainian for an old Soviet tank key or something cool


SquidPies t1_j1w23od wrote

they already sell keychains made out of russian jet and helicopter skins


Hereveld_thewanker t1_j1wl9ny wrote

Surprise surprise a country being rinsed by a bigger country isn' developing.


BuhamutZeo t1_j1vqfzp wrote

Let's see if we can't get that down further with some international tacti-drone warfare consulting gigs.


feor1300 t1_j1x1hgh wrote

While typical industry is down, scrap metal reserves are way, way up...


Due_Platypus_3913 t1_j1xjerr wrote

Wonder how that compares to Russia’s economic collapse?


macfaddenstrews t1_j1yadfm wrote

Yup, that's another thing I admire about Ukraine, they don't let an invasion get in the way.


Romeos_Crying t1_j1yk74q wrote

Alright. I mean a quantum computer would be nice.


Turbulent_Section868 t1_j1vk0u4 wrote

Do the financial aid packages count towards GDP?


pwnd32 t1_j1w6670 wrote

Gross domestic product is a measurement of internal goods production and value, so foreign aid generally doesn’t reflect in GDP directly. I think the equation to calculate GDP itself has nowhere to slot in any kind of foreign financing. I’d imagine international aid does help to indirectly improve GDP nevertheless.


Turbulent_Section868 t1_j1wojuw wrote

Not sure why the downvotes but thank you for answering. It makes a huge difference since if it counted towards GDP directly the numbers given would be much more negative for Ukraine than if it doesn't (since we'd basically cover up a much worse situation).

You're probably right about the indirect effects.


Terrible_Pace_6927 t1_j1y4di7 wrote

Lol ukraines biggest export is political corruption


Accomplished_Line_67 t1_j1vgssp wrote

Most likely because the US is propping up the entire economy of Ukraine.


StationOost t1_j1vug3m wrote

You mean Europe. The US is giving military aid and that money is staying in the US.


Darnell2070 t1_j1y18ai wrote

How is Europe propping up the Ukraine economy though?

At the very least being able to defend yourself helps keep your economy propped up, no?


Accomplished_Line_67 t1_j20blpy wrote

Both the US and Europe are propping up the economy, meanwhile Ukrainian politicians vote to raise their salaries and are seen vacationing throughout Europe. You can google this and see that this is true. Military aide doesn’t help the Ukrainian military much because they don’t have the training to use more advanced weapons systems. So Ukrainian military leaders are selling Western weapons to terrorists in the Middle East, hell! Some are selling Western weapons to the Russians lol They are being willfully slaughtered.


olleversun t1_j1xba4x wrote

Staying within the pockets of the MIC


KickooRider t1_j1xfgs1 wrote

858 b dollar defense budget it's more than a complex at this point, it's our personality.


Accomplished_Line_67 t1_j1xoes6 wrote

No, that’s not what I mean. A portion of the money is being laundered back into the US, yes, but Europe is also being threatened to back Ukraine by the US.


abecido t1_j1xwh4e wrote

Ukraine is basically a failed state when the Russians are done with it.


hello_ground_ t1_j1y4tae wrote

Other way around.


abecido t1_j218i43 wrote

It's already a failed state now.


hello_ground_ t1_j225oql wrote

A failed state beating the shit out of russia with NATO scraps lol. Ukraine will be rebuilt. They will trade. They will manufacture. Russia will...keep being russia. If they surrender, submit their leaders to The Hague, and pay for damages, the west (their best trading partner by far) might lift sanctions. There might even be a denuclearization agreement. Obviously, russia can't be trusted with such weapons.


abecido t1_j239tjy wrote

Ukraine is just the battlefield. Your leaders don't really care about the people there, you just want the land. For some weird reason you think that Europe can work without Russia, but whenever Europe was in trouble in history, it was because it were at odds with Russia. It's not going to happen. You lost Korea, Vietnam, Afghanstan and Iraq, and now you are about to lose Ukraine.


hello_ground_ t1_j25qq01 wrote

Europe is doing fine without russia. Russia...not so much. Ffs, russia couldn't even take Kyiv, which is less than a hundred miles from their border. That's pathetic. "Second strongest military in the world". Russia isn't even the second strongest military in Ukraine lol. I can't wait to see the look on putins face when the US sends a few squadrons of F-16s. Priceless. Russia just need to face reality; if they keep up their bullshit, they're going to be just like North Korea. Shunned by everyone, and having a total shithole for a country. Go home, russia. You're drunk.


Brookburn t1_j1wp250 wrote

Yea their GDP isn’t falling as much because we are sending them billions of dollars?


Yak54RC t1_j1wqldn wrote

In weapons, which doesn’t count towards their GDP


MasterBot98 t1_j1wt3f9 wrote

It does in an indirect and relatively minor way of protecting the possessions which would've been destroyed, but yeah thats it.


MagicMushroomman420 t1_j1widmz wrote

I really hope they pay us back for all this war support this isn’t free money


Yak54RC t1_j1wqtel wrote

We spend almost a trillion dollars a year “in the event of a war with Russia or China “ we are spending less than 5 percent of that to have someone else kick Russia’s ass without a single military casualty.


plenebo t1_j1vnhop wrote

Maybe something to do with the billions the USA is giving them, won't be free after the war. Likely chevron will swoop in for that yummy gas


StationOost t1_j1vucuv wrote

The US is not giving billions, their aid is mainly military and that money is staying in the US. Financial and humanitarian aid comes from Europe.


osuvetochka t1_j1whlrr wrote

Is this some internal US propaganda?


StationOost t1_j1yg5um wrote

US internal propaganda is that the US is the only country giving any sort of meaningful aid. So, no.


ZhouDa t1_j1yn89c wrote

Leaving aside that most of the aid is in military equipment and only some of it is financial support, after the war Ukraine will be able to support themselves just like they did before the war, particularly if the west does the right thing and gives them some of that Russian oligarch money they seized in order to rebuild.

Ukraine's economy didn't depend on their oil reserves before the war since Russia made sure they couldn't be tapped with the seizure of Crimea and creation of LNR/DNR, but as long as Ukraine gets their cut they'll still benefit as well if gas companies come and start pumping crude as long as oil continues to hold value.