Never too early to plan for Ukraine’s recovery

CIUS weekly report on North American media coverage of Ukrainian affairs, 28 July–3 August 2024

Six publications (The National Interest, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The Wall Street Journal, The Globe and Mail, and The National Post) were selected to prepare this report on how Ukraine has been portrayed in the North American press during the past week. The sample was compiled based on their impact on public opinion as well as on their professional reputation, popularity among the readership, and topical relevance. These publications represent centrist viewpoints on the political spectrum.

This MMS report covers only the most-read and relevant articles about Ukraine, as ranked by the respective North American publications themselves in the past week. Its scope covers promoted articles on home pages and articles from special sections on Ukraine, with the hashtag #Ukraine, from the paper editions of the publications, and about Ukraine from opinion columns and editorials.

MMS summaries

Never too early to plan for Ukraine’s recovery. Max Primorac (National Interest) argues that rebuilding Ukraine and breaking Russia’s stranglehold will require a massive injection of private investment and across-the-board economic reforms. The World Bank estimates that it will cost “half a trillion dollars to rebuild Ukraine. Ukraine says it needs twice that sum.” The key problem is that the American taxpayer is unlikely to be willing to finance Ukraine’s recovery. Private-sector sources are interested in investing in Ukraine, but it needs reforms. “If Kyiv can adopt a post-war strategy that spurs high economic growth and breaks through the Soviet legacy that has saddled it with endemic corruption, crony capitalism, budget-draining state companies, and government mismanagement, this would help attract private capital, strengthen the country’s resiliency against future Russian attacks, and more firmly integrate it into Europe.” In the author’s opinion, this is an advantage for Ukraine, as it creates an opportunity for rapid democratic and economic development. Kyiv’s first step in this direction should be to fight corruption: “Ukraine has yet to liquidate its 3,500 state-owned enterprises that feed endemic crony capitalism, corruption, and massive budgetary deficits, sustaining anti-foreign investment lobbies fearing external competition.” Doing so will pave the way for significant private investment. According to Primorac, “Kyiv needs to come to grips with these hard reforms now. If Ukraine’s leaders don’t embrace the reality that any real reconstruction will come from private—not public—coffers, they will miss the historic opportunity to break free from Russia’s economic orbit.”

Ukraine is not ready to join the West. Anchal Vohra (Foreign Affairs) argues that Ukraine is still too corrupt to join the West. Corruption is a key obstacle on Ukraine’s path to EU and NATO membership. Referring to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, the author notes that Ukraine ranks 104th out of 180 countries, which is “far worse than members of the European Union whom Ukraine wishes to join as an equal. Denmark was ranked as the least corrupt, Germany at No. 9, Estonia at No. 12, and France at No. 20.” In addition, in some NATO member states corruption, rather than fear of Russia, is the main obstacle to winning membership approval. Over the past decade, Kyiv has made some progress in the fight against corruption—by establishing anti-corruption institutions, introducing asset declarations for high-ranking officials, and digitizing many processes, including public procurement. However, this is not enough. According to Vohra, “Although the changes…are remarkable, they are seen as baby steps in Ukraine’s long journey to one day join the EU and NATO.”

Prisoners also have the right to defend Ukraine. Liz Cookman (Foreign Policy) questions whether involving prisoners in Ukraine in defending the country will solve the problem of lack of soldiers on the front line. In May this year, the Ukrainian parliament passed a new law allowing the mobilization of up to 10,000 prisoners from places of incarceration. According to the author, “The move mirrors Russia’s use of convicts, which by one estimate has involved 100,000 recruits.” However, there are significant differences. First, unlike Moscow, Kyiv gives prisoners the opportunity to choose whether they want to serve or not and carefully selects candidates for the program: “The process takes about one month from expressing interest to enlisting, with steps including checks by doctors and psychologists, writing two letters to confirm interest, and a court hearing.” Second, Ukraine “also currently excludes those convicted of serious crimes like murder, rape, terrorism, and treason. Convicted corrupt officials holding responsible positions, including members of parliament and ministers, are also ineligible.” Third, Kyiv protects the lives of its soldiers, even if they are prisoners: “Ukraine often refers to the Russian units as meat battalions, sent to die as cannon fodder or to attract Ukrainian fire so that commanders can identify positions. But inmates…believe the Ukrainian military will treat them as equals with other members of the military—which is also the official policy.”

Russia’s war against Ukraine linked to Marxism. Leon Aron (Wall Street Journal) argues that for China, Russia’s victory over Ukraine would vindicate the Marxist theory of history. Beijing is a lifeline for Moscow, providing almost all key imports for the Russian military machine: “microelectronics for missiles, tanks and aircraft; machine tools for ammunition production; and nitrocellulose, a critical explosive ingredient for artillery shells.” According to the author, Western countries should stop believing that they can persuade China to influence Russia to end the war. Beijing has a vested interest in the war: “Beyond obvious geopolitical gains, a Russian victory would offer a powerful vindication of the Marxist theory of history. A demoralized and degraded West would be Exhibit A of the decay of ‘bourgeois democracies,’ validating what the Central Committee has called the party’s place on the ‘right side of history and the side of human progress.’” According to Aron, “Mr. Xi’s inspirations—Lenin, Stalin, Mao—all forged or expanded communist regimes during or following wars. Stalin’s 1939 pact with Hitler also offers an uncanny parallel to Mr. Xi’s support for Mr. Putin: a communist state aiding a fascist state in its war on the capitalist West.”

Canada’s frozen Russia assets are a crucial lever in supporting Ukraine. Doug Sanders (Globe and Mail) argues that for some Canadians, the sight of the Antonov AN-124 parked at Toronto Pearson Airport is a stark reminder of the frozen Russian assets since early 2022, symbolizing foreign-policy inaction. As Canada contributes billions to aid Ukraine against the Russian invasion, some argue that the country should also hand over the frozen assets, including that aircraft and the estimated US$16-billion Canadian-controlled share of the US$300 billion in Russian state assets frozen by the West. In June 2022, Canada gained the power to transfer private oligarch assets, but transferring the nearly half-trillion in government funds is complex, according to the author. The G7 nations agreed to use the interest from these assets to fund Ukraine’s defence, creating an endowment fund that generates billions annually. However, this funding covers only a fraction of Ukraine’s military spending and reconstruction costs; thus, some are advocating for the outright seizure of these assets in order to bolster support. “Rather than simply denying Moscow access to them, why not spend those funds on arming or rebuilding Ukraine?” Sanders asks. Despite the push for seizure, significant concerns exist. Such a move by non-warring countries could destabilize Western economies, causing less-developed nations to withdraw their assets and potentially leading to clearing-house failures that would require costly EU bailouts. Additionally, seizing the assets removes a crucial negotiation tool for future leverage with Russia, especially in the scenario of a leadership change. The possibility of unfreezing assets serves as a potent motivator for rogue nations to alter their behaviour, as seen in the Iran nuclear deal. Maintaining the assets as an endowment while retaining the power to seize them is crucial, particularly if the 2024 US election results in a Trump victory, which might halve US support for Ukraine. In such a situation, leveraging these frozen assets would be vital to sustaining Ukraine’s defence efforts. The author cautions: “The promise of unfreezing assets and returning a country to economic normality is the most powerful instrument we possess for changing the behaviour of a rogue country.”

Survey reveals Canadians support Ukraine more than Israel in global conflicts. Stephanie Taylor (National Post) highlights a recent Postmedia-Leger poll which indicates that a significant majority of Canadians believe it is crucial to support democratic allies against authoritarian threats, with Ukraine receiving stronger backing than Israel in its conflicts. Specifically, 71% of Canadians support standing with Ukraine against Russia’s invasion, with only 13% opposed. This broad support follows Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s commitment of $3 billion in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, highlighting Canada’s dedication to the Ukrainian cause. In contrast, only 47% of Canadians support standing with Israel in its defence against attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah, reflecting a more divided stance on this issue. The survey also reveals that Canadians are generally supportive of standing with other nations that face authoritarian threats, such as South Korea against North Korea (65%) and Taiwan against China (62%). The poll suggests a trend among Conservative supporters, with 15% expressing doubts about the importance of standing against aggression from undemocratic countries—hinting at a potential faction with isolationist tendencies within the party. Leger vice-president Andrew Enns notes that this could be due to concerns about spending or broader geopolitical strategies. The poll, conducted online with 1,601 Canadians, has a margin of error of ±2.45%, 19 times out of 20.

Amid war, Kyiv continues pushing for global support. Nataliya Gumenyuk (Foreign Policy) examines the substantial international sympathy which Ukraine has garnered following the Russian invasion, attributing this support to several factors. She notes that “the unprovoked aggression made a moral stance obvious. Historically, too, Ukraine has never invaded or occupied any country.” The conflict is perceived as a multifaceted struggle involving issues such as the rule of law, human rights, environmental threats, and democracy versus autocracy, positioning Ukraine as an underdog against a superpower. This perception has galvanized broad-based international support, which is crucial for Ukraine to maintain in order to prevent this war from becoming a globally divisive issue. The author also highlights Ukraine’s proactive global engagement to secure financial and military aid, noting that President Volodymyr Zelensky has initiated several international meetings and delegations in order to rally support. These efforts include advocating for sanctions against Russia, military aid, and international legal accountability for war crimes. Ukraine’s outreach has extended to food security initiatives, such as the “Grain from Ukraine” program, which underscores the country’s role in global food supply. Additionally, Ukraine is seeking to establish a Special International Tribunal for war crimes: “Global solidarity isn’t something that can be demanded; it must instead be inspired. In the end, Ukraine does not expect foreigners to fight—it is Ukrainians who are paying the highest prices, with their own lives.”

MMS takes a closer look:

Is corruption in Ukraine really an obstacle to EU and NATO membership? Anchal Vohra (Foreign Affairs) declares that corruption is a key obstacle on Ukraine’s path to EU and NATO membership. To support her argument, she presents the Corruption Perception Index: “Transparency International ranked Ukraine at 104 out of 180 countries in the corruption index for 2023, far worse than members of the European Union whom Ukraine wishes to join as an equal. Denmark was ranked as the least corrupt, Germany at No. 9, Estonia at No. 12, and France at No. 20.”

MMS notes that this index can hardly be sufficient in arguing Ukraine’s unpreparedness for EU or NATO membership. Denmark, Germany, Estonia, and France are indeed leading countries in this ranking. However, countries such as Hungary (76), Romania (63), and Bulgaria (67) are only slightly ahead of Ukraine and are already members of the EU. At the same time, there are NATO member states with similar or even worse corruption perception ratings than Ukraine: Albania (98), North Macedonia (76), and Turkey (115).