comment: >
  
  Very true
context: For reference, the US's GDP dropped 4.3% during 2008's Great Recession, and 30% during the Great Depression. >
  
  How much did European countries lose during and following WW2? >
  
  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.
  Source >
  
  Germany surprisingly a lot higher than I assumed >
  
  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. >
  
  wasn't there still a ginormous amount of civilian deaths to firestorms of dresden and similar? >
  
  So it goes >
  
  Let it snow let it snow let it snow >
  
  While good news, it's still terrible. :( >
  
  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. >
  
  as long as the funds will be used well. Both Ukrainians and EU/other donators should control each penny and punish misuse harshly >
  
  Well, the political will is there. One large contributor for this war was the ousting of previous corrupt russia-alighned governments. >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  I presume that Ukraine has factored this into the $300bn aid it requires for rebuilding. >
  
  I think the US alone has sent more than 1/3 of Ukraine’s gdp in aid. >
  
  Mostly military thou, doesn't help the economy outside of stopping Russia from causing more damage. >
  
  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. >
  
  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". >
  
  It's crazy we don't give them tanks. Thanks that they have built and we don't need. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  They've seen a large increase in their production of dead Russian soldiers >
  
  Orders of magnitude, in fact >
  
  Let's see if we can't get that down further with some international tacti-drone warfare consulting gigs. >
  
  While typical industry is down, scrap metal reserves are way, way up... >
  
  Surprise surprise a country being rinsed by a bigger country isn' developing. >
  
  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 >
  
  they already sell keychains made out of russian jet and helicopter skins >
  
  Most likely because the US is propping up the entire economy of Ukraine. >
  
  You mean Europe. The US is giving military aid and that money is staying in the US. >
  
  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? >
  
  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. >
  
  This sounds like Russian propaganda, lol. >
  
  Do the financial aid packages count towards GDP? >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Wonder how that compares to Russia’s economic collapse? >
  
  Yup, that's another thing I admire about Ukraine, they don't let an invasion get in the way. >
  
  Alright. I mean a quantum computer would be nice. >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  Is this some internal US propaganda? >
  
  US internal propaganda is that the US is the only country giving any sort of meaningful aid. So, no. >
  
  Lol ukraines biggest export is political corruption >
  
  Yea their GDP isn’t falling as much because we are sending them billions of dollars? >
  
  In weapons, which doesn’t count towards their GDP >
  
  It does in an indirect and relatively minor way of protecting the possessions which would've been destroyed, but yeah thats it.