[Goose]

That Ukraine's economy is in big trouble is not in dispute. But in your post you don't explain how that leads to Ukraine's nonviability as a state.

IMO I did explain, in detail. Ukraine's most important industry going forward (at least for many years) will be agriculture, by an overwhelming margin. This agriculture is non-competitive because of excessive  transportation costs. These costs are inherent in the structure of Ukrainian territory in the absence of water transport.  This non-competitive industry will therefore continue to shrink severely, and that which remains will be profit squeezed. The subsidies from the west will not continue. Right now, if Ukraine wasn't being propped up, it would collapse. That isn't going to get better. If you were a young person that wanted to live in a modern, prosperous European state would you stay there?

Ukrainian GDP per capita could drop by ~40% from present levels and they'd be in the same league as countries like India, Bolivia, the Phillipines. Not wealthy countries but certainly viable states.

Bolivia is perhaps the best comparison. The big differences from Ukraine are as follows: First of all, India has population of 1.429 billion people. The Philippines has a population of 117.3 million. They both therefore have a large domestic market that can consume lots of what they produce. India does export some agricultural products, but the vast majority is sold domestically. India's major exports are Refined Petroleum ($86.2B), Diamonds ($25.9B), Packaged Medicaments ($19.5B), Jewellery ($12.6B), and Rice ($11.1B), exporting mostly to United States ($82.9B), United Arab Emirates ($31.6B), Netherlands ($17.6B), China ($15.3B), and Bangladesh ($13.8B). The Philippines exports semiconductors and electronic products, transport equipment, garments, chemical products, copper, nickel, abaca, coconut oil, and fruits. Again, diversified. Many of the items, such as semiconductors diamonds, pharmaceuticals, and jewellery are high value relative to weight/volume, unlike commodities. Transportation costs don't matter nearly as much. This allows trade world-wide without much regard for distance.

In 2021 (before the war) Ukraine's top exports were led by Corn ($6.02B), Seed Oils ($5.54B), Wheat ($3.27B), Iron Ore ($2.97B), and Rapeseed ($1.55B). The iron ore has undoubtedly gone down significantly, because a lot of it was from Donbas. Notice the critical difference. ALL of the major Ukrainian export products are commodities and ALL are "bulk" items with high transportation costs relative to value. If Ukraine could use its south eastern transport network it would mitigate these transportation costs considerably. Lots of it could move by barge, which now it cannot. Unfortunately that is all in Russian hands.

The second critical difference, which also applies to Bolivia, is that these nations are all free to trade with their neighbors through all their borders. Presumably the rump Ukraine will not trade with Russia, which controls its eastern and a lot of Ukraine's southern border. Belarus will soon be officially part of Russia, so the northern border will also be closed. Russia has no need of Ukraine's agricultural products, but when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union almost all of the Donbas trade was with Russia. The Donbas was critical to the Soviet Union. Russia is Ukraines "natural" trade partner. Ukraine's transportation network was constructed with Russia as the prime destination. Since Russia has now seized lots of that network, Ukraine is at a double disadvantage.  Russia is no longer a trade partner and the transportation network is compromised by Russia holding important parts of it.

So, without doubt these two nations are in significantly different (and much better) economic situations than a "rump" Ukraine will be. These nations also have a "way ahead" that distances them from the dependence on commodity prices that bedevils nations that have not diversified their exports. People living in these countries can reasonably expect a brighter future. The rump Ukraine will not have that option, at least in the foreseeable future.

Bolivia is indeed a poor nation. Their main exports are Petroleum Gas ($3.08B), Gold ($3.01B), Zinc Ore ($1.68B), Soybean Meal ($1.03B), and Soybean Oil ($874M). The most common destination for the exports of Bolivia are India ($2.27B), Brazil ($1.89B), Argentina ($1.76B), Colombia ($1.06B), and Japan ($963M). Bolivia is landlocked. It has a "guaranteed" rail connection to the Chilean port of Arica. Whether Bolivia is a "viable" nation is a bit in doubt these days. The thing "saving" Bolivia was the natural gas pipeline to Brazil and then on to Argentina. The vast majority of Bolivia's gas exports go that way. Pipeline is a fairly cheap way to "ship" natural gas. The problem is this: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/...024-09-25/ That will put a big dent in exports. Consider https://www.firstpost.com/world/what-sou...39741.html

Economic turmoil has been compounded by political instability. President Luis Arce, struggling to stabilise the economy, faces growing resistance from both opposition forces and factions within his own party. The internal rift with former president Evo Morales has created a political deadlock, stalling necessary reforms. Meanwhile, social unrest grows as inflation rises and essential goods become scarce, eroding public confidence in the government’s ability to manage the crisis.

Natural gas exports are cratering. The country is also in political gridlock. Fuel is unobtainable. The thing that argues Bolivia will continue as a nation is that the land will physically still exits, its indigenous population has nowhere to go and that both Peru and Chile took everything they wanted from Bolivia already. Bolivia has important natural resources. Due to the mountainous nature of most of the country exploiting and exporting these resources are very difficult. When the price of the commodities it exports at the moment is high enough, it will simply be very poor. When the price goes down, who knows? Is this a "viable" state?

[Goose]

That Ukraine's economy is in big trouble is not in dispute. But in your post you don't explain how that leads to Ukraine's nonviability as a state.

IMO I did explain, in detail. Ukraine's most important industry going forward (at least for many years) will be agriculture, by an overwhelming margin. This agriculture is non-competitive because of excessive  transportation costs. These costs are inherent in the structure of Ukrainian territory in the absence of water transport.  This non-competitive industry will therefore continue to shrink severely, and that which remains will be profit squeezed. The subsidies from the west will not continue. Right now, if Ukraine wasn't being propped up, it would collapse. That isn't going to get better. If you were a young person that wanted to live in a modern, prosperous European state would you stay there?

Ukrainian GDP per capita could drop by ~40% from present levels and they'd be in the same league as countries like India, Bolivia, the Phillipines. Not wealthy countries but certainly viable states.

Bolivia is perhaps the best comparison. The big differences from Ukraine are as follows: First of all, India has population of 1.429 billion people. The Philippines has a population of 117.3 million. They both therefore have a large domestic market that can consume lots of what they produce. India does export some agricultural products, but the vast majority is sold domestically. India's major exports are Refined Petroleum ($86.2B), Diamonds ($25.9B), Packaged Medicaments ($19.5B), Jewellery ($12.6B), and Rice ($11.1B), exporting mostly to United States ($82.9B), United Arab Emirates ($31.6B), Netherlands ($17.6B), China ($15.3B), and Bangladesh ($13.8B). The Philippines exports semiconductors and electronic products, transport equipment, garments, chemical products, copper, nickel, abaca, coconut oil, and fruits. Again, diversified. Many of the items, such as semiconductors diamonds, pharmaceuticals, and jewellery are high value relative to weight/volume, unlike commodities. Transportation costs don't matter nearly as much. This allows trade world-wide without much regard for distance.

In 2021 (before the war) Ukraine's top exports were led by Corn ($6.02B), Seed Oils ($5.54B), Wheat ($3.27B), Iron Ore ($2.97B), and Rapeseed ($1.55B). The iron ore has undoubtedly gone down significantly, because a lot of it was from Donbas. Notice the critical difference. ALL of the major Ukrainian export products are commodities and ALL are "bulk" items with high transportation costs relative to value. If Ukraine could use its south eastern transport network it would mitigate these transportation costs considerably. Lots of it could move by barge, which now it cannot. Unfortunately that is all in Russian hands.

The second critical difference, which also applies to Bolivia, is that these nations are all free to trade with their neighbors through all their borders. Presumably the rump Ukraine will not trade with Russia, which controls its eastern and a lot of Ukraine's southern border. Belarus will soon be officially part of Russia, so the northern border will also be closed. Russia has no need of Ukraine's agricultural products, but when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union almost all of the Donbas trade was with Russia. The Donbas was critical to the Soviet Union. Russia is Ukraines "natural" trade partner. Ukraine's transportation network was constructed with Russia as the prime destination. Since Russia has now seized lots of that network, Ukraine is at a double disadvantage.  Russia is no longer a trade partner and the transportation network is compromised by Russia holding important parts of it.

So, without doubt these two nations are in significantly different (and much better) economic situations than a "rump" Ukraine will be. These nations also have a "way ahead" that distances them from the dependence on commodity prices that bedevils nations that have not diversified their exports. People living in these countries can reasonably expect a brighter future. The rump Ukraine will not have that option, at least in the foreseeable future.

Bolivia is indeed a poor nation. Their main exports are Petroleum Gas ($3.08B), Gold ($3.01B), Zinc Ore ($1.68B), Soybean Meal ($1.03B), and Soybean Oil ($874M). The most common destination for the exports of Bolivia are India ($2.27B), Brazil ($1.89B), Argentina ($1.76B), Colombia ($1.06B), and Japan ($963M). Bolivia is landlocked. It has a "guaranteed" rail connection to the Chilean port of Arica. Whether Bolivia is a "viable" nation is a bit in doubt these days. The thing "saving" Bolivia was the natural gas pipeline to Brazil and then on to Argentina. The vast majority of Bolivia's gas exports go that way. Pipeline is a fairly cheap way to "ship" natural gas. The problem is this: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/...024-09-25/ That will put a big dent in exports. Consider https://www.firstpost.com/world/what-sou...39741.html

Economic turmoil has been compounded by political instability. President Luis Arce, struggling to stabilise the economy, faces growing resistance from both opposition forces and factions within his own party. The internal rift with former president Evo Morales has created a political deadlock, stalling necessary reforms. Meanwhile, social unrest grows as inflation rises and essential goods become scarce, eroding public confidence in the government’s ability to manage the crisis.

Natural gas exports are cratering. The country is also in political gridlock. Fuel is unobtainable. The thing that argues Bolivia will continue as a nation is that the land will physically still exits, its indigenous population has nowhere to go and that both Peru and Chile took everything they wanted from Bolivia already. Bolivia has important natural resources. Due to the mountainous nature of most of the country exploiting and exporting these resources are very difficult. When the price of the commodities it exports at the moment is high enough, it will simply be very poor. When the price goes down, who knows? Is this a "viable" state?