Before draining that much from taxpayers, what’s left of it should be given to Russia.
Just a thought...
1. How much of Mariupol has been rebuilt since Russia “won” the rubble in May last year?
2. How much did it spend on that rebuild?
3. Is the rebuild “top dollar”, or is it about as high quality as a southern Turkey high rise?
For the sake of argument, if Russia’s had to spend $500m putting only 10% of the city back in a vaguely working state, that means it’ll cost far more than $5bn to restore the city to a BASIC standard (there’s no way they’re rebuilding entire tower blocks in a matter of a few months to a high quality earthquake-proof standard. Turkey is probably regretting its lamentable building quality control.)
If they really want to show off how much nicer and more modern Mariupol could be after a total ground-up Russian rebuild, and do it to a standard that surpasses anything Ukraine could’ve managed in peacetime, they’ll need to double the spend.
Now consider that Mariupol is WAY smaller than Donetsk, Luhansk, and Lysychans’k + Severodonetsk... To make the Donbas city rebuilds surpass what has been demolished, Russia would need to spend over $75bn.
Of course Russia doesn’t need to rebuild ALL of it because far more than half of the Donbas population already chose not to live under DPR or Russian occupation.