"War State" and "Welfare State" Symbiosis in the Post-War Reconstruction of Ukraine

The purpose of this study is to analyse the impact of the war on social protection and social security in the country, to examine the interdependence between the level of social security of the population and the military power of the state, to develop effective mechanisms for strengthening social protection in Ukraine during the war and its post-war recovery. Methodology . The use of multi-criteria analysis of integral indices such as the index of security threats, the index of refugees and displaced persons, the index of comprehensive national power, as well as the use of formulas for calculating the power of the state, made it possible to trace the impact of the war on the social component, the development of social security, the institutionalisation process of social protection systems, the creation of ministries of national welfare in order to overcome the socio-economic consequences of the war. The results of the study demonstrate the synergistic effect of strengthening the state's defence capabilities, its military strength and increasing the effectiveness of social policy, the level of social security of the country's citizens. Practical implications. The Ukrainian model of state functioning in times of war is defined as a symbiosis, a combination of effective social protection policy and strengthening the country's military power through systematic support of the army: "a strong home front is a strong army". Value / Originality . Russia's full-scale war against sovereign Ukraine, like a litmus test, has revealed the instability of the global system and convincingly proves the need to develop the Ukrainian model of a "social welfare state in wartime" with an emphasis on strengthening the military component.


Introduction
The war has significantly changed the policy of social protection of the population and social security of the country, creating the need for state intervention to support citizens during and after military conflicts.In such circumstances, governments are forced to intervene in socioeconomic relations to ensure the survival and wellbeing of their citizens.Such intervention takes the form of social welfare in the form of benefits and subsidies, free education and medicine for the disadvantaged sections of the population, as there is a high probability of losing one's job, home or even life.The author has previously drawn attention to the fact that the global socioeconomic system is trying to adapt to the conditions of the turbulent environment of the BANI and TUNA worlds, where there are new types of risks that are difficult to control and whose consequences are impossible to predict (Chaliuk, 2022;Perehuda, 2021;Perehuda, Kalenska, 2023).
Russia's large-scale war against sovereign Ukraine, like a litmus test, has revealed the instability of the world system and convincingly proves the need to develop the Ukrainian model of a "social welfare state in wartime" with an emphasis on strengthening the military component.
As a result of the First World War, approximately 10 million soldiers died and 20 million were wounded.According to various sources, the total number of military and civilian casualties in the Second World War was between 50 and 75 million.About 8 to 10 million of them were Ukrainians.Millions of widows, orphans, disabled veterans, unemployed and refugees needed social protection.Interestingly, foreign scholars such as Bajwa J., Chang S., Dellums R., Eisner M., Hepburn S., Jackson A., Koshgarian L., Kunkel S., Lusuegro A., Mittelstadt J., Obinger H., Pavan I., Petersen K., Schmitt C., Siddique A., Starke P. have studied the influence of the intensity of warfare on the development of social security systems and also the experience of building a welfare state during and after military operations.The domestic scientists, in particular V. Abramov, A. Bahinskyi, S. Horda, A. Kachynskyi, V. Mandrahelia, D. Molochenko, E. Pyrohovska, Y. Perehuda, C. Polumiienko, G. Sytnyk, Y. Chaliuk, V. Yakushyk.have studied the relationship between social protection and the strengthening of the country's military power, and have also shown that the catastrophic consequences of the war created a significant demand for social assistance among the population and had a huge impact on the state's social spending.
In order to achieve the main goals of the modern national security policy of Ukraine -ensuring the security of individuals, society and the state, preserving its independence, territorial integrity, sovereignty and further progressive developmentthe political consolidation of citizens around common values and interests, maintaining civil peace, overcoming existing political contradictions and achieving a socially acceptable standard of living is required.This is possible under the conditions of maintaining the balance of interests of all objects of national security protection (Kachynskyi, Molochenko, 2016;Kachynskyi, 2013).

Welfare State and War State During the First and Second World Wars
The First and Second World Wars played an important role in the development of the welfare state.European countries, such as the UK and France, created extensive social security systems to support war-affected populations.Their systems were designed to provide for veterans, widows and the unemployed.The creation of such welfare systems was a response to the potential future social and political unrest that often followed war, as governments sought to maintain social stability and prevent the growth of radical movements.
The British sociologist Richard Titmuss has argued that the losses caused by war (both financial and human), military demobilisation (the transition of the country's armed forces and economy from a state of war to peace at the end of the war) and post-war economic and political crises create a huge demand for social protection that the state must meet (Titmuss, 1974).After the Second World War, all belligerent countries were required to provide material assistance to disabled veterans injured during hostilities and to the families of fallen soldiers.Millions of veterans also needed medical care and psychological support for successful reintegration into society and future return to the labour market (Obinger, 2020).Another part of the war-affected population needed unemployment benefits, housing programmes, free education and vocational training.
The link between war and welfare is counterintuitive, because war is associated with violence and destruction, and welfare with altruism, support and care.Even the term welfare state was presented as a progressive and democratic alternative to the Nazi warfare state during the Second World War.
The academic discourse on this challenge is characterised by two approaches.The first defines only the negative social consequences of military and defence spending, if the process of armament, war and militarisation should lead to economic stagnation and a reduction in social spending.The second is a compromise and takes into account the fact that just before or during a war, resources are allocated to military needs.However, in the long run, the increase in defence and military security costs of the state does not usually lead to unemployment, a decrease in pension and health care costs (Pavan, 2019).
The negative consequences of the Second World War influenced the development of the general welfare state that is characteristic of the EU countries, where national governments tried to meet the mass demand of citizens for social needs.Immediately after the war, comprehensive legislation in the field of social policy was adopted almost everywhere, leading to a qualitative leap in the development of the general welfare state (Dellums, 1986;Eisner, 2000).

The Impact of the First and Second World Wars on the Development of Social Security Systems
Analysts Herbert Obinger and Karina Schmitt of the SOCIUM Research Centre on Inequality and Social Policy (University of Bremen, Germany) measured the intensity of the impact of the First and Second World Wars on the development of social security systems in different countries, based on information on the duration of the war, the assessment of the economic benefits and losses resulting from it, and taking into account the characteristics of the territories where hostilities took place.
Figure 1 illustrates how the intensity of war affects the development of social security systems.It shows that social expenditures grew during the First and Second World Wars, and peaked at the beginning of the Cold War.
The impact of the war on the social component and the institutionalisation process of social protection systems was reflected in the creation of ministries of national welfare (see Figure 2) to overcome the socio-economic consequences of the war (Obinger, Schmitt, 2018).
As can be seen in Figure 2, France, New Zealand, Belgium and Canada experienced a sharp increase in the formation of social organisations during and after World War I.The dynamics of this process were accelerated by the creation of the International Labour Organization (ILO) in 1919 (Kunkel, 2018;Hepburn, Jackson, 2021).Countries such as Australia and Japan introduced ministries of labour and social policy during the Pacific War, which began in 1937 with the involvement of Japan, and the Second World War, 1939-1945.This regularity clearly indicates that both world wars were catalysts for the institutionalisation of national social security structures (Obinger, Schmitt, 2018).
The Pacific War of 1937-1945 was the most innovative period in the development of social security policy in Japan.In 1938, following intense National health insurance was soon introduced, along with state pensions and unemployment benefits.Among other social innovations of the war period, the following state innovations should be mentioned: in Belgium, the development of the social insurance system ("Social Pact", 1944); France and Germany -the expansion and modernisation of the system of assistance to the poor, the support of the middle class as the driving force of the country's development; Great Britain -the Fishermen's Education Act (1918), the National Health Service Act (1946) and the Housing Act (1949) were passed, employment protection and the regulation of working hours (introduction of the eight-hour day), the expansion of the health system, the categories of beneficiaries and social transfers for disabled veterans and other war victims were defined; Austria after the First World War ("veterans' welfare state") -legislation on employment protection and social insurance was passed, the government took under its care 1. 5 million disabled former soldiers, half a million widows of fallen soldiers and 2 million orphans.After the Declaration of Independence in 1955, 20% of the post-war Austrian budget was spent on veterans in the form of pensions and rehabilitation.All these measures laid the foundations for modern policy towards people with disabilities.In the USA and Israel after the Second World War, there was a significant increase in state support and social protection for veterans and their families (Obinger and Petersen, 2014; Perehuda and Primush, 2023).

The Impact of Increasing the Country's Defence Capability on its Socio-Economic Development
There are many scholars who question the positive impact of strengthening the country's defence capability on its socio-economic development.
American analysts from the Institute for Political Studies (Brown University, USA) Koshgarian L., Lusuegro A., Siddique A. in the report "The Warfare State: How Funding for Militarism Compromises Our Welfare", argue that American militarism is destroying the foundations of social protection for the population (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 confirms the significant share of government spending on strengthening US defence capabilities.Instead of financing social programmes (investments in housing, education, health care, clean air and water, combating climate change), 62% of the country's federal budget goes to its militarisation (Koshgarian, Lusuegro, Siddique, 2023).The US Department of Homeland Security has received seven times more funding than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the past 20 years.This policy left the US healthcare system unprepared for the COVID-19 pandemic, which killed 1.1 million people.The underfunding of the social sector is due to the country's politicians, who see military spending as more important than social spending, and social protection of the civilian population as creating a weak, dependent society that weakens national power.That is why, in their opinion, the government should increase funding for the army instead of eliminating funding for those who avoid work and are not worthy recipients of social assistance.However, the US experience shows that the modern American army could never be the best in the world without an adequate system of social protection.The poor health, nutrition and education of potential conscripts during the First and Second World Wars led to the expansion of national welfare programmes.The United States has built a general welfare state by improving the education and medical systems, providing old age pensions, protecting the disabled, ensuring safety in the workplace, raising the minimum wage and regulating the length of the work week, regulating the tax system and subsidising housing loans, food and military feeding programmes, developing physical training programmes for young people of conscription age.
Since the 1970s, social and economic benefits have been extended to US military personnel of all ranks, and a huge number of programmes have been created to support their families.US military personnel rely on the welfare state, their families use public schools, child services and food stamps.
Social welfare contributes to national military power.Students at the US Army War College recognise the positive relationship between social welfare and national power, the military power of the state, and emphasise the interrelated importance of political, economic and social institutions in addressing issues of international concern.In ranking the world's states, military power has never been the only criterion of their power.Education, health care, human development, and other socio-economic indicators occupy an important place (Mittelstadt, 2014;Mittelstadt, 2015).

Findings
The current Russian-Ukrainian war leaves the government of Ukraine and its population with no choice when assessing how long and intensively the army should be financed, and what consequences the strengthening of the military component will have in the overall system of Ukraine's development.
According to the Security Threat Index, which assesses the likelihood of a threat to the state's security (explosions, attacks, deaths as a result of military operations) on a scale from 0 to 10, in 2023 Ukraine ranked first among 41 countries with an index of 10.The average score for 41 countries was 2.86 (see Figure 4).
It is clear that the number of refugees and displaced persons in Ukraine has increased due to the feeling of insecurity and danger.In 2023, Ukraine was ranked first among 177 countries in the Refugee and Displaced Persons Index, which scores countries from 0 (low) to 10 (high).The average value of the Index for 177 countries is 4.73.
The strength of the state depends on both the socio-economic development of the country and its defence capability and military power (Welfare is Essential for Warfare).The development of the country's potential on the basis of the industrial worldview involves the identification of Economic, Social, Scientific-technological, Moral-political and Military components (Bahinskyi, 2022; Sytnyk, Abramov, Mandrahelia, 2012).The implementation of this "resuscitation package of reforms" will help to create a reliable rear of the Ukrainian army, reduce social tension in society, lay the foundations for an active social policy, and strengthen the country's social security in the context of war and post-war reconstruction.Ensuring social welfare in times of war is a new model of Ukraine's social strategy.Even after the victory over Russia, the danger of a second invasion will not disappear.The common border with Russia is a constant threat to the existence of the Ukrainian nation.Hence the conclusion: "The country that has a strong army, a strong home front, and a united front and rear is invincible!"

FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2
FIGURE 1The impact of the intensity of hostilities on the development of social security systems(Kachynskyi, 2013)

FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5
FIGURE 4  Ranking of countries by the Security Threat Index in 2023(STI, 2023)

1 . 3 . 4 .
The formula of J. Singer and M. Smol (1972): Power -strength; tpop -total population; upop -urban population; sp -steel production; fc -coal production; mb -military budget; saf -the military forces personnel number.2. R. Kline's formula (1994): Power -strength; C -critical mass (territory + population); E -economic power; M -military power; S -strategic goal; W is the national ability to exercise will Formula by A. Beckman (1984): Power -strength; Steel -percentage of world steel production; Pop is a percentage of the world population; Pol_stab -index of political stability Formula of A. F. K. Organski and J. Kugler (1980); J. Kugler and V. Domka (1986): Power -strength; GNP -gross national product; Tax Effort -tax solvency; Foreign Aid of Recipes -foreign assistance in certain ways.where Tax Effort is tax solvency; Real tax ratio -real tax coefficient; Tax capacity -tax volume 5. Formula of N. Alcock and A. Newcomb (1970): Power -strength; Population -population size; GNP is gross national product 6.F. Clifford Herman's formula (1960): Power -strength; L = f1 (territory, its use); P = f2 (labor resources, their use); I = f3 (resources, their use); M -number of military personnel forces (in millions); N = 2 (if nuclear weapons available), 1 (if not available) 7. V. Fuchs's formula (1965): Power -strength; E -electricity production; S -steel production; P is the population size 8. R. Thompson's formula: National real strength -power of the state; Manpower -workforce; Resources -resources; Will -ability to show will (population) 9. F. Kosai's formula (modified formula of Ray S. Klein): P -power; C = population + territory + natural resources; E = GNP + average GNP + real growth rate; M -military power; G -Domestic policy capacity; D -Capacity of state diplomacy 10.Chin-LungChang formula: 10.1 Model 10.2 Model-Establishment of military departments in all higher education institutions of Ukraine, compulsory basic military training for young men, and basic medical knowledge for girls.-Introduce compulsory First Aid and Tactical Medicine courses in schools and universities, as well as training in the safe handling of weapons.-Retired soldiers (practical implementation of the ideas of the silver economy) (Chaliuk, 2023) can provide consultations, share the experience of successful combat missions with the younger generation.-Involvement of prisoners in works related to the repair of military equipment, sewing clothes and shoes for the military, weaving camouflage nets.-Involvement of prisoners of war in the reconstruction of Ukraine, especially in the cities most affected by Russian aggression (Borodyanka, Bucha, Vorzel, Hostomel, Dymer, Irpin, Katyuzhanka, Mariupol, Pisky, Avdiivka, Bakhmut, etc.).-Equation of corruption in wartime with high treason.

TABLE 1
Parameters of the state's comprehensive power index

TABLE 2
Formulas for calculating state power