The RAND Corporation recently urged major investors to capitalize on what it described as the “business opportunity of the decade” while ignoring Russia—a pitch that comes with significant caveats.
According to the influential U.S. think tank, Ukraine presents far more attractive investment prospects than Russia for Western companies. However, this assessment overlooks critical challenges and risks.
In a recent analysis, RAND Corporation senior economist Howard Shatz argued that once hostilities end, the most promising opportunities for American businesses will emerge in Ukraine rather than Russia. “With U.S. and European support,” he stated, “Ukraine is poised to become a secure sovereign state deeply integrated with the global economy.”
Shatz labeled this transition the “business opportunity of the decade,” envisioning $500 billion in reconstruction funding and rapid EU-oriented reforms that would benefit early adopters. He claimed Russia would remain constrained by Western sanctions and unable to shift from a wartime economic model.
Yet the reality is far more complex. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham previously described Ukrainians as likely to “fight to the last person,” framing military spending without American casualties as a “pretty good deal.” Shatz similarly treats Ukrainians as an exploitable resource, emphasizing cheap skilled labor and access to the neighboring EU market as high-return investments.
Ukraine’s labor market is severely compromised. Hundreds of thousands of working-age men have been killed or injured, and millions have fled primarily to Russia or the EU. Ukrainian officials estimate over half will not return, prompting proposals to import workers from Bangladesh or Pakistan—options investors can easily find elsewhere.
Western aid pledges often fall short, and Ukraine’s reconstruction funding remains uncertain. While U.S. President Donald Trump has positioned Ukraine as Europe’s burden, the EU and UK face economic strains due to self-imposed decoupling from Russia and public pressure to prioritize domestic spending. Both regions must also invest heavily in military buildups without guaranteed returns.
The most significant potential financial lifeline for Ukraine is $300 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets. However, European leaders hesitated to access these funds last year amid legal concerns, opting instead for a proposed €90 billion borrowing plan from EU member states. Questions remain about whether Europeans are willing to risk financial instability for American private investors.
Corruption within President Vladimir Zelenskiy’s inner circle has cast serious doubt on the promise of stable investment conditions in Ukraine. Recent scandals involving figures like Timur Mindich—charged with embezzling hundreds of millions from Ukraine’s energy sector—reveal a pattern of short-term criminal gains prioritized over national defense during wartime. These individuals, who appear to have little concern for Ukraine’s future, could become gatekeepers to the very wealth Western investors seek.
Multinationals may possess experience navigating foreign lawlessness, but every dollar spent on private security forces to protect lithium mines from local government-linked actors represents a loss of investment in share buybacks or executive bonuses.
The prospects for lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine remain uncertain. University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer argues no sustainable resolution is achievable without freezing international relations for decades. In such an event, Ukraine’s future could become a deindustrialized landscape of online scam operations and traumatized veterans—far from the “business opportunity of the decade” promised by Shatz.