One can never make the pragmatic calculations of such global events, because no one knows the future, and no one knows the alternative future brought about by making a different decision. — unenlightened

And yet someone has to, and we either participate in holding those decisions to account or we wash our hands of the whole dirty business and let others decide for us.

Currently, our governments have decided war is for the best (though anyone who thinks they have defeating fascism in mind has been living in a cave for the last few decades). We either hold that decision to account, or we give over our responsibility to them. Do you trust your government to make that choice well, without public scrutiny? I don't.

And to think the only way to fight fascism is with war...

So here we are. Discussing the courses of action our governments are taking so as to give, or withhold, our support. Holding them to account in the public fora.

...ought we not?

ought we not? — Isaac

I think we ought, but I think we ought to do so carefully, with respect for differing opinions.

I certainly do not trust my (UK) government to do what is best for most people in the UK let alone the world. And that is a question I also don't know the answer to, - in the case of a conflict between the interests of the world and the interests of the people it represents and governs, does a government have a right or a duty to do what is best for the world?

The damage. As I've explained above. The costs are measured in millions of lives. — Isaac

The cost is not actually measured. You are talking of an economic theory, which is to say that everything and every countries are connected, and thus some consequences beyond Ukraine and Russia are to be expected. The poor worldwide will suffer the global consequences. But how many and by how much is not being measured. Whatever methodology one cooks up for doing so would be awfully complex, and open to many criticism.

Because you see, the world poor also suffer from the consequences of millions other things, first among which comes disenfranchising in their own country. Their lack of political and legal rights lays at the root of the problem. Poverty is powerlessness.

Regardless, this is about your claim that it is proper only to consider the opinion of Ukrainians when deciding whether to continue funding the war. Are you now going back on that position? — Isaac

Not at all, for the very simple reason that I never ever professed such an opinion.

think we ought, but I think we ought to do so carefully, with respect for differing opinions. — unenlightened

To a point. I don't have any truck with racism, or nationalism. I'm not going to act as if militarism is an OK opinion to have, or that war crimes, and human rights abuses are OK if you happen to be this month's media darlings. It's not OK. Some opinions are not suitable for polite discussion.

in the case of a conflict between the interests of the world and the interests of the people it represents and governs, does a government have a right or a duty to do what is best for the world? — unenlightened

I think everyone does, km not sure how else our globalised society is going to work. It may be in Brazil's best interests to capitalise on their timber resource, but the rest of the world need to breathe. It may be in India's best interests to use cheap coal, but it's not in Hawaii's for them to. It may be in Ukraine's best interests to keep pushing on to recapture Crimea, but Somalia need them to get back to farming wheat.

Short of a global government I don't see any other way than national governments developing an international conscience.

The cost is not actually measured. — Olivier5

Of course it's measured, don't be stupid. Governments, NGOs, corporations, don't just make random guesses as to the impact of their interventions. The measurements might not be accurate, they might be open to interpretation, but they're not absent.

Nor are they so wide that 'anything goes'. We may not know exactly what factors lead to the famine in the Horn of Africa, but we know damn well it wasn't an excess of funding. We know stopping food supplies won't help. Your appeal to relativism only gets you so far. There's limited 'alternative facts' you can spin on this.

Their lack of political and legal rights lays at the root of the problem. Poverty is powerlessness. — Olivier5

Absolutely. Corrupt autocracies are to be avoided. As are foreign powers like the IMF dictating government policy by poverty exploitation.

Losing territory to an autocrat is a sure fire way to lose autonomy. So is getting into odious debt trying to avoid the former.

I never ever professed such an opinion. — Olivier5

Yeah, right.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/06/us-says-zelenskiy-risks-allies-ukraine-fatigue-if-he-rejects-russia-talks-report

I have no idea what you're talking about. — Isaac

Agreed. You have no idea about what you yourself are talking about, go figure!

What has the pragmatic acknowledgement that Russia had legitimate security concerns (if you poke them, they'll bite), got to do with the ethics of supporting a war affecting millions according only to the objectives of those with a particular passport? — Isaac

Precisely, that’s why you are living in your fantasies. You must properly connect ethics with pragmatics if you want to rationally commensurate what should be achieved (in terms of desirable ends) with what can be achieved under given geopolitical circumstances.

We ought not have provoked Russia - knowing what would happen and we ought not continue to finance a war which risks the starvation of millions. — Isaac

Here 3 problems:

• Unjustified conceptual framework shift: what do you mean by “Russia” here? Did you ask ~143M Russians? Are you treating Russia as a homogenous entity? There is no Russia, just a bunch of people with Russian passports. And since their government is not democratic and there are no other ways to measure support, we have no way to know what Russia wants. So stop talking about Russia being provoked.
• Missing geopolitical conceptual framework: your pragmatic acknowledging that Russia had legitimate security concerns is not based on the conceptual framework that gives sense to the expression “legitimacy security concerns” with all its implications but outside of it (namely it's based on its ethic implications). It’s like acknowledging the value of a chess move by a player based on the next move of his opponent independently from what the endgame is or worse as a function of how the result is welcomed by the father of one of the players or worst without understanding that chess is a competitive game.
• Unjustified knowledge claims: talking about “knowledge” is incompatible with the notion of taking decisions under uncertainty as in politics people do (and you were taking into account), and that’s not just due to the extraordinary complexity of the problem, but also due to the players’ intentional opacity about specific strategies: geopolitical agents for security concerns are never fully transparent to their competitors or even allies (e.g. just think of the notion “strategic ambiguity”). And that's why our guesses better be educated by geopolitics and history.

if you believe that "lots of global events cause that level of damage - from local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty" why are you specifically concerned about the Ukrainian crisis? — neomac

It's the title of the thread. — Isaac

Sure why not? Since you just happened to find a study that highlights the effects of the Ukrainian crisis instead of the effects of "local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty”, you thought it was worth quoting it to me because of the title of the thread, despite the fact I was the one who first linked a survey titled “Global impact of the war in Ukraine: Billions of people face the greatest cost-of-living crisis in a generation” while you were the one claiming that the Ukrainian crisis doesn’t deserve such highlight compared to"local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty", right?

No it isn't, don't be naive. It's produced by conflicting national interests, not Steven Segal. — Isaac

Are you crazy?! I - not you - am the one claiming that the core issue is about the Western countries national interest in conflict with the national interest of an authoritarian regimes like Russia, China and Iran. You are the one trying to sell us the idea that 8 million dead children in Yemen ought to be the core issue of this conflict as if it made geopolitical sense!
And talking explicitly in terms of hegemonic power clash is Putin too, not his friend Steven Seagal: https://intellinews.com/putin-calls-for-a-new-world-order-in-his-annual-valdai-speech-260759/

Governments, NGOs, corporations, don't just make random guesses as to the impact of their interventions. — Isaac

LOL. They do do guess, not totally randomly of course. Sometime they don't even care to guess. Someone has to pay for the info, otherwise why collect it? And that is the case with the number of deaths attributable to the conflict outside Ukraine: nobody cares to count. In fact, a reliable body count does not even exist inside Ukraine.

I never ever professed such an opinion.
— Olivier5

Yeah, right. — Isaac

That is correct. Countries that help Ukraine do so for all sorts of reasons and might stop their support whenever they feel like the cost is too high, or some other reason. My point, instead, is that the belligerents are the ones deciding when to stop the war, and how and when to negotiate to that end.

LOL. They do do guess, not totally randomly of course. — Olivier5

So what you mean to say is "Yes, that's right, they don't just randomly guess", but it seems you're allergic to agreeing with anyone not on your team.

My point, instead, is that the belligerents are the ones deciding when to stop the war, and how and when to negotiate to that end. — Olivier5

Ah right, so you've come on just to make a blindingly obvious point that my 10 year-old nephew has no trouble with. Good effort. What's next on your agenda? Telling everyone that the Pope's catholic?

You conveniently ignored the empirical part of my post, which was:

And that is the case with the number of deaths attributable to the conflict outside Ukraine: nobody cares to count. In fact, a reliable body count does not even exist inside Ukraine. — Olivier5

It's not my fault if you are wasting your time chasing windmills. Next time try and understand what I say rather than shoot first and think later.

Next time try and understand what I say rather than shoot first and think later. — Olivier5

...

Or you could try and explain what you mean a bit better. — Olivier5

Russia has a long history of similar views of Putin and Patrushev (or Dugin). We often forget that either the Mensheviks or the Bolsheviks weren't the only play around in Russia when it had it's Revolution and especially before the revolutions. For example, the Chornaya sotnya, the Black Hundreds, promoted an ultra-conservative right-wing idealism which supported the House of Romanov, was against any reforms to the autocracy of the Tzar and favoured ultra-nationalism and anti-semitism. Some of the sycophants of Putin's regime seem like them. And of course, in today's Russia the movement has been refounded. And btw. the movement participated in the early stages of the Russo-Ukrainian War on the side of pro-Russian separatists. — ssu

Fun fact: Drya Platonova/Dugina - Dugin's daughter who was car-bombed, allegedly by the Ukrainian intelligence - closely cooperated with the present-day Black Hundreds publishing company, and knew its founders well. One of her texts was to be included in "Book Z", a collection of texts about the invasion that the publisher is planning to release later this year.

I have discounted Dugin's influence on Putin here, but lately there have been rumors that since Darya's death, Putin, or at least his administration, have taken a greater interest in Dugin. Dugin, along with another odious ultra-nationalist figure, Alexander Prokhanov, have reportedly been invited for consultations to Kremlin, and their idioms have been cropping up in, e.g., Medvedev's ridiculously ferocious social media posts.

Putin's regime has an ideology problem. It was never really ideological, as I have previously said. What could pass for ideological messaging from the top was amorphous, inconstant and uninspiring, for the most part. As in the late Soviet era, there was an unofficial social contract where the populace was discouraged from participation in politics and activism, and in exchange those in power would leave them be, provide safety from wars and major upheavals, as well as some basic prosperity. Keep your head down, and you'll be fine.

That contract was already fraying before the invasion: prosperity was declining and the future didn't look promising. And then the contract was shattered entirely. The unthinkable happened, and then again and again: an invasion into Ukraine that turned into a protracted war that isn't going well, sanctions and isolation that ordinary people are beginning to feel, and then the ultimate blow: mobilization. The authorities are asking a lot from the populace, but have nothing to give in return. So they feel like they have to come up with some inspiring ideology at last. Or at least they feel like this is what Putin expects of them. Dugin, Prokhanov, etc. - they sound like they are in tune with Papa (as they call Putin among themselves), so they may finally find some use.

Note that contrary to you in that older exchange, I just did explain clearly and simply what my position was as soon as your confusion about it became apparent.

Chilling down back then apparently didn't go over too well.

Russia’s Potential Drawdown from Kyiv Fractures Pro-War Voices at Home
— James Beardsworth; The Moscow Times; Mar 30, 2022

I myself was in a state of panic yesterday. Today I feel better. The night was accompanied by heavy bombardment of Ukrainian targets throughout the country, from Lviv to Donetsk. — Alexander Prokhanov

We will not make concessions, Medinsky made a mistake, what he did was not right. — Ramzan Kadyrov

Elementary school teachers predicament ...

• Russian schools to teach new course on Crimean "reunification" (Nina Achmatova; AsiaNews; Dec 4, 2014)

• Russia moves to eradicate Ukraine from schools in occupied Mariupol, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (Halya Coynash; Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group; Jul 4, 2022)

• Ukrainian TV host shows textbook to Russify school students in occupied Mariupol (Andriy Bednyakov; The New Voice of Ukraine; Sep 14, 2022)

• Ukraine's Lightning Counteroffensive Has Russian Teachers Rethinking Plans To Work In Occupied Areas (RFE/RL; Sep 17, 2022)

• ‘No way I could work for the Russians’: the Ukrainian teachers resisting occupation (Shaun Walker, Pjotr Sauer; The Guardian; Sep 18, 2022)

• Ukraine war: Tortured for refusing to teach in Russian (Zhanna Bezpiatchuk, Sofia Bettiza; BBC; Oct 1, 2022)

Re-culturation. (OK, I made that word up.) There's something a bit sinister about this stuff ...

• 29 thousand Crimean ‘Youth Army’ recruits taught to hate Ukraine and be ready to die for Russia (Halya Coynash; Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group; Feb 7, 2022)

• Russian State Patriotism and Putinʼs Invasion of Ukraine (Jussi Lassila; ZOiS; Apr 6, 2022)

• Young Army Cadets National Movement / Yunarmia / Yunarmiya (Wikipedia)

EDIT: wrong word

A Good informative comment.

Of course we have to remember that during the late Soviet times " ideological messaging from the top was amorphous, inconstant and uninspiring, for the most part". We and others called it the Lithurgy. Communicating with Soviets was basically listening to these lithurgies, which basically was the way for Russians to speak and show as Soviets that they were on the party line. What they talked in their own kitchen among friends was totally different. And this has continued to the Putin era.

What we cannot know exactly is just how popular this present lithurgy is. It's still like neocons of G.W. Bush administration: they had a huge impact on US policies, but quickly faded away and became unpopular among the masses (especially after Trump among the Republican voters too). The present "war-party" ideologues in Russia are actually also a rather small cabal.

Of course, this imperialist ultra-nationalism needs desperately some kind of victory in Ukraine. Ukrainians will fight and as long as the West will assist this poor country, Ukraine can push Russia into a humiliating defeat, which likely will make the imperialists a laughing stock and justified culprits for this war.

Their only hope is that the West fails to do this, to support Ukraine. This can happen because of the absurd appeasing manner of fearing "escalation". Now Putin is supported only by the far right and the far leftists (as seen here on this forum), yet this mental block of fearing escalation might be the real hope for Putin. If Ukraine is pushed into an armstice on the present lines (or even with Kherson liberated and the front-line going on the Dniepr-river), it still will be a victory for Putin. Retaking Crimea would be possible for Ukraine only next year at the earliest.

As one commentator put it: the West support for Ukraine is strengthened by Ukrainian victories and Russian attrocities.

This can happen because of the absurd appeasing manner of fearing "escalation". — ssu

George Beebe, the director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute, said the reports are a stark reminder that the war “could rapidly escalate into a direct U.S.-Russian confrontation.”

The risks of escalation in the Ukraine war are rising fast

The Underappreciated Risks of Catastrophic Escalation

The risk that the war in Ukraine escalates past the nuclear threshold

Putin’s Risk SpiralThe Logic of Escalation in an Unraveling War

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129792 - talk of possible nuclear weapons use could lead to a “dangerous spiral”.

Ukraine has path to victory, but prospect of defeat risks dangerous escalation from Russia

...but of course, everyone who disagrees with you simply must be absurd because you are Way, the Truth and the Light.

, the scenarios you pitch against each other are both risky. :/

How about reinstating the Kharkiv Pact with a neutral intact, otherwise free sovereign, Ukraine (though it could frustrate the extremists)?

Say, having some UN observers or whatever scour about would probably be fine with most, including the Ukrainians. We're not talking Israel-Palestine here. Elections could be independently certified for some time. Maybe any internal conflicts could be addressed over time. People could get on with life.

Did that ship sail?

As an aside, this review makes the book seem interesting: How to Un-Rig an Election by Alberto Simpser

How about reinstating the Kharkiv Pact with a neutral intact, otherwise free sovereign, Ukraine (though it could frustrate the extremists)? — jorndoe

I'd be in favour of literally any agreement which ended the fighting. The less territory in Russian control the better though, so if they'd go for your intact, sovereign Ukraine, then great.

But why on earth would the Russians just give up donbas and Crimea? They de facto owned Crimea before the recent invasion, and donbas was wavering. What do you think Ukraine could offer that would persuade the Russians to give up Crimea?

Interesting development you highlight here...

People could get on with life. — jorndoe

Today, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), through the Agriculture Resilience Initiative - Ukraine (AGRI-Ukraine), announced a new partnership with Bayer to address the immediate and longer-term demand for corn seed among Ukrainian farmers and other countries that depend on seed from Ukraine.

Ahh Bayer to the rescue, phew...

This would be the same Bayer who plead guilty and pay a fine of $66 million to settle charges that it participated in an international scheme to fix prices of rubber chemicals. Who were fined $16.2 million for fixing the prices of aspirin and other over-the-counter meds in Germany. Who agreed to pay $18 million to settle claims it conspired with other manufacturers to inflate the price of certain plastics. Who paid more than $257 million in global settlement of the FCA and criminal allegations that it attempted to evade paying required rebates to state Medicaid programs for sales of Cipro and Adalat.

Sounds like it's not just Russia and Ukraine relying on convicted criminals to help resolve this crisis.

But I forget, literally everyone who isn't Russia are saints with nothing but the shining light of freedom guiding their pure hearts. I'm sure Bayer will save the day and not just fuck everyone over for as much profit as they can squeeze out of whatever emaciated husk they deign to leave behind, like they've done with every single other contract they've touched.

, I don't know, ..., no NATO in Ukraine, a whole neutral country right there (the more the better?), no nukes in Ukraine, stability + some observers helping to prevent atrocities against minorities, one less staging area, one less geo-worry (check those eruptions elsewhere), their naval base on otherwise neutral grounds, a chance to show bona fides goodwill + potential for gaining international trust + rekindle relations, saving war resources (seems they already spent/lost quite a bit), possible cancellation of Sweden's + Finland's NATO applications, ease up some domestic tensions, sanctions easing up, a chance to exit the bad cycle/spiral, demonstrate resilience against the radicals for the world to see, less weeping mothers, decrease hate, picking the less risky/costly more stabilizing option, peace (in that area anyway).

Actually, the option might as well be put forth. As a starting point at least, a way out. Try to get China behind it. Put the diplomats to work.

But the Putinistas may not care. Might not be realistic. Can't say I'd be optimistic as it stands. At least everyone would know if that was the case.

A blocker could be if the Ukrainians were to demand repairs or some such. Maybe the international community could step in, instead of Russia, don't know, it's all hypothetical.

Isn't that a bit hyperbolic, ? You wouldn't give them a chance to do some good, helping with Ukrainian foodstuff?

Al Jazeera reported (Nov 7, 2022; 3m:39s)...



Zelensky sets terms for negotiations with Russia
^{— Clyde Hughes; UPI; Nov 8, 2022}

Ukraine’s Zelensky Sets Conditions for ‘Genuine’ Peace Talks With Russia
^{— Matthew Luxmoore, Laurence Norman, Marcus Walker; WSJ; Nov 8, 2022}

• compensation for losses
• territorial integrity (per UN charter)
• bringing war criminals to justice
• guarantees against recurrence

That's more or less four of Anders Åslund's six items: 1, 2, 3, 6,
one of which (6) also was brought up by Oleksandra Matviichuk.

(hey, mine is more future-oriented)

Mykhailo Podolyak is skeptical...

‘Hundreds’ of Russians killed daily as Donetsk is ‘littered with bodies’
^{— Nataliya Vasilyeva; Telegraph; Nov 8, 2022}

Civilians grabbed from Podmoskovye and shipped off to the frontlines? :/ Apparently, that's what those taken captive says.

Peace terms that the other side are never going to accept are little more than a gloss on a continued war effort.

no NATO in Ukraine — jorndoe

...trouble is, Minsc II already had "Pullout of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine" - Yet according to Reuters "While Ukraine's armed forces of more than 200,000 servicemen are less than a quarter the size of Russia's, they have been significantly boosted since 2014 by Western military aid, including supplies of U.S. Javelin anti-tank missiles and Turkish drones.", and 102,000 (estimated) foreign paramilitaries.

It's going to take more than non-NATO membership on paper (if that's all that's on offer), it needs to be in practice.

no nukes in Ukraine — jorndoe

...already an agreement. You can't go to Russia and offer them something they already have.

stability + some observers helping to prevent atrocities against minorities — jorndoe

...seriously! Does it look like Russia gives a flying fuck about preventing atrocities? Possibly could play to a home audience as a win, but with the change in tone now in Russia, I don't think that will work as well as it might have a few months ago.

one less staging area, one less geo-worry — jorndoe

...as above, staging and revolutions are not prevented by paperwork. There needs to be more of an international commitment to stop interference.

their naval base on otherwise neutral grounds — jorndoe

...but their naval base is currently in their territory. I don't see how this constitutes an offer, it's a concession. Russia currently hold Crimea (have done since 2014, and most of Donbas. Ukraine aren't offering to pull out of those regions, their offering to not attack them. A peace deal doesn't start with "we won't attack you if..."

a chance to show bona fides goodwill + potential for gaining international trust + rekindle relations — jorndoe

This ship has sailed. The Western propaganda machine has been ramped up to such a volume no politician without a deathwish is going to be seen 'trusting' Russia. They've burnt their own bridges there.

saving war resources — jorndoe

Russia could save war resources any time, on the terms you suggest. It's expending war resources trying to hold its new territory, it's not an 'offer' to allow then to stop, they can just stop.

possible cancellation of Sweden's + Finland's NATO applications — jorndoe

I don't think Russia cares about Sweden and Finland in NATO, both countries are well 'Westernised' already, they're a lost cause as far as the 'Western' influence Putin fears. weapons-wise, there's already missile bases in Poland etc. It's not the strategic loss Ukraine would be. Might be worth something though...

ease up some domestic tensions — jorndoe

...go on...how do you see this working? Do you think there's a significant opposition in Russia that would be satisfied by such an agreement?

sanctions easing up — jorndoe

.., if the lifting of sanctions were actually part of the agreement (rather than assumed on trust) they'd be a boon, but not enough alone. sanctions aren't that bad, and Russia can hit back just as hard (look at the fuel crisis faced by Europe this winter).

demonstrate resilience against the radicals — jorndoe

I think Putin is one of the radicals.

...

These all seem like 'icing on the cake' type sweeteners, but there's no actual offer under them to sweeten. Ukraine will have to give something more substantial, some cake for the icing to sweeten.

Isn't that a bit hyperbolic, ↪Isaac
? You wouldn't give them a chance to do some good, helping with Ukrainian foodstuff? — jorndoe

It's a pattern repeated over and over - War -> reconstruction requirements -> corporate opportunity to screw everyone.

I can't think of a single example from history where that's gone well for the inhabitants. Can you?

Mykhailo Podolyak is skeptical... — jorndoe

I don't think at this stage that Ukraine are going to want any kind of realistic deal, but it's not their opinion that matters to us, we're concerned with the grounds on which we ought approve the funding of this war. I think the offer of a realistic peace deal (and Russia's rejection of that offer) ought be the bare minimum grounds on which we fund a foreign war. If no such offer is made, I don't see we have any moral grounds to be involved. Peace has to be our priority, not territory.

going to take more than non-NATO membership — Isaac

Right, like a formal neutrality agreement, involving external parties like the UN, NATO itself, whichever.

already an agreement — Isaac

Except some number of their statements complain about that on their doorstep (been mentioned in the thread a few times by now). But, in a formal neutrality agreement, this would be put to rest.

Does it look like Russia gives a flying fuck — Isaac

Whether they do or not, it would at least no longer be an excuse of theirs, it'd be credibly monitored by independent parties (like the UN).

their naval base is currently in their territory — Isaac

In a war zone. Not a neutral zone in which they'd have an agreement, a formal lease.

This ship has sailed — Isaac

Don't give up so easily. Lives (and infrastructures) are at stake, right? Might take some time, but, hey, small steps.

they can just stop — Isaac

Not if they wish to continue warring. It's proven costly.

they're a lost cause as far as the 'Western' influence Putin fears — Isaac

OK, so we're beyond NATO and a neutral Ukraine here. We're talking Putin against a couple or so continents. If that's his real actual beef, his reason for war bombing killing destruction, then he's already steered onto a path with a markedly larger conflict, not ending with Ukraine. That could be. Without some effort, I suppose we'll eventually find out, though I (personally) hope not.

Do you think there's a significant opposition in Russia that would be satisfied by such an agreement? — Isaac

Don't know, but I'd be surprised if all of Russia is going all-out blood-lust. People have fled the country, some have tried avoiding getting sent to war, some poorly (or un-)trained new soldiers have reportedly surrendered to Ukrainians. Jussi Lassila's post from Apr 6, 2022 suggests less Russian enthusiasm than what meets the eye. But, hard to tell.

I think Putin is one of the radicals — Isaac

That's the bad part, where we might hope he's not a goner entirely. :/ There'd be no telling what's next.

something more substantial — Isaac

The suggestion could be a start. Try getting China in on it. Something.

It's a pattern repeated over and over - War -> reconstruction requirements -> corporate opportunity to screw everyone.

I can't think of a single example from history where that's gone well for the inhabitants. Can you? — Isaac

It looks like a tautological claim. On a charitable reading, the example would be: Germany, Italy, Japan after WW2.
If further "reconstruction" doesn't necessarily presuppose war, then I'd include also ex-Warsaw Pact states and Soviet-Union Republics that joined the West (i.e. through NATO and/or EU) after collapse of Soviet Union.

Germany, Italy, Japan after WW2 — neomac

Interesting. Which American corporations were significantly involved in those reconstructions?

Hence: "It looks like a tautological claim. On a charitable reading"