This article is the second in my series examining currently popular ideas about how Ukraine’s geopolitical importance to the US-led western bloc will supposedly influence post-war economic development in Ukraine.
I traveled from Tokyo to Seoul in 1967 in the company of a Monsanto plant engineer (he built 'em) and asked how much his company was investing in the factory he was constructing.
"And what return on its investment did Monsanto expect?? I added.
Oh, over 100% annually, he said. We won't go into a project for less than that.
Interestngly, this is what Russia basically wanted from Yanukovich. Like Park Chung-Hee, he could become that russified illiberal protectionist that would allow Russia to offload the industries that it would grow out of due to rising wages, provide its own domestic market and skills of sending stuff abroad.
In short, the Euromaidan fought against turning Ukraine into a weaker form of RoC under patronage of weaker form of Japan.
What happened instead is that Russia kept these industries to itself due to stagnating wages, as well as importing of cheap central asian labor. Worse for Ukraine, worse for Russia. A big win for liberal democracy.
US has allocated 46 Billion dollars and EU spent 17 billion euros .US & EU wants to fight russia( always an enemy as it didn't disarm after cold war and russia can fill US role in europe) .they even propagate ukraine democracy is a thorn for putin etc.,
Russia has to be subdued over a period of time to cut china to size.
Why russia is colonizer of ukraine? Russian and ukranian people are same compared to polish- lithuanian kingdoms,crimean khanate etc.,
Very interesting how the ROK was industrialized. I didn't know.
As for Poland and the Ukraine, Polish companies built the fiber optics networks here in a rural part of Northern Germany. First, they had mostly Polish workers, and the following year, they had lots of workers from the Ukraine, and Poles only for the higher skilled tasks.
"Lacking foreign investment, most of the poor capitalist world hence remains poor, and this is something that not even the wisest military dictator can change. They are simply unnecessary for the global market. There’s no domestic purchasing power, and the purchasing power of the rich countries is already satisfied."
I don't know if that is true, but it is food for thought. There must be a way, using protectionism and education, to get oneself out of the relatively poor state. But probably not when everything has to be "open" and "liberal", thus also imposing a continuous brain drain on the country.
Thanks, this is interesting, but leaves quite a bit to be explained.
Take any of the following: 1. GDP per capita, 2. real GDP at constant prices or 3. life expectancy at birth, and look at the difference between Ukraine and its neighboring states in 1989. Then look at the differences in 2019. It's astounding.
Let's look at life expectancy at birth. Moldova was almost 3 years below Ukraine in 1989 (67.6 vs. 70.5). By 2019, Moldova was 0.1 years above Ukraine (71.9 vs. 71.8). The biggest difference in life expectancy between Ukraine and another country in 1989 was 1 year (Ukraine: 70.5, Belarus: 71.5). By 2019, the biggest difference stretches to over six years (Poland: 77.9 vs. Ukraine: 71.8). See here: acab.link/s/8XVgiS.
Or take real GDP from the Penn Tables (see here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RGDPNAUAA666NRUG#0). Ukraine's GDP at constant prices in 2019 was at about 70% of its 1991 level. I don't think any other country of the former Eastern bloc, or of the former USSR for that matter, has done so badly. Moldova is pretty bad, but not nearly as bad.
Apparently some development has been possible even within the market economy, though not for Ukraine.