That's a great question.
It's not easy. It is very possible and very likely that without real coordination, donors are going to have all kinds of requirements generated by their parliaments and their aid agencies.
We talk about the Marshall plan. The Marshall plan was one country to many. This is many countries to one. Ukraine will not be able to fulfill all of the requirements of all 30 members of the OECD development assistance committee. That is why we say that ultimately the priorities should be set by Ukraine.
Now, there should certainly be traceability. Countries will not carte blanche give Ukraine the right to use any assistance as they wish. We recognize this, and Ukraine should recognize it. That's where the inspector general comes in. That's where donor meetings among senior coordinators come in. Compromises could be made in a room with Ukrainian officials. That's also where tracing of the finances comes in.
We haven't really had a situation like this before, and we're going to have to stumble our way through it. In the end, there should be significant deference to Ukraine's priorities, especially if they draw on recent advances that they've made in the last 10 years on decentralization, and especially if we hear about priorities from localities in the different regions of Ukraine in terms of what would best help them redevelop and reconstruct.