Ukraine has learned to count losses, but we still don’t count resources. We measure GDP, inflation, budget deficit, the amount of international aid, but we don’t measure what directly affects all these indicators – the mental resilience of the nation.
The world has long recognized that mental health is an economy. According to WHO estimates, depression and anxiety disorders cost the global economy more than $1 trillion each year in lost productivity. The OECD estimates that mental health problems can cost countries up to 4–5% of GDP. For Ukraine, which is living in a state of full-scale war, these risks are objectively higher.
Various international estimates suggest that up to 40–50% of Ukrainians may need psychosocial support due to the war. But we do not have a single national indicator that would systematically measure the country’s psychological resources. That is why Ukraine needs a National Mental Resilience Index.
What is the National Mental Resilience Index?
This is an aggregate indicator that allows you to measure the “mental capital” of a state, just as GDP measures economic capital. The index can consist of several key blocks:
- Level of chronic stress. Prevalence of anxiety symptoms, sleep disturbances, emotional exhaustion, etc.
- Professional burnout. Separate measurements for doctors, military personnel, teachers, civil servants, and critical infrastructure workers.
- Trust in institutions. The level of trust in the state, the medical system, local government. Trust is a key indicator of social stability.
- Social cohesion. Horizontal trust between citizens, level of conflict, sense of belonging.
- Adaptability and cognitive resilience. The ability to plan for the future, accept change, and feel in control of life.
The index can be formed through regular representative surveys, digital monitoring panels, data analytics in cooperation with government agencies and international scientific institutions. This is not medical statistics, it is a risk management tool!
The world has long proven: mental health is an economic factor!
The UK measures national well-being (ONS Wellbeing Measures), the OECD has developed the Better Life Index, and Nordic countries are integrating mental health indicators into public policy. One of the key principles of the Mayo Clinic is the systematic measurement of the patient’s condition. Mental health is integrated into general medicine, and standardized scales for assessing anxiety, depression, and quality of life are regularly used to adjust treatment. The logic is simple: you can’t manage what you can’t measure.
Ukraine can apply this model at the macro level: regular measurement → analytics → management decisions. Similar tools are already used in other countries, but none of these systems are adapted to the conditions of full-scale war. Ukraine can become the first state to integrate mental resilience into a national security architecture with a clear economic dimension.
Assuming that psycho-emotional factors reduce productivity by at least 2–3%, this means billions in losses for the economy. Chronic stress reduces concentration, shortens the horizon of strategic planning, increases the number of errors, and accelerates staff turnover. Professional burnout in critical sectors is a direct risk for the state.
The National Mental Resilience Index will allow forecasting personnel losses, identifying regions of increased risk, assessing the effectiveness of support programs, and linking mental health to macroeconomic indicators. Mental resilience will become an element of economic policy.
A society with high levels of anxiety and low trust is more vulnerable to information operations, more polarized, and less mobilized in the long term. Mental resilience is also part of national security.
The index can become an element of strategic monitoring along with economic and military indicators.
Why now?
Ukraine is entering a phase of long-term recovery, and it’s not just infrastructure. It’s restoring the ability to think, trust, plan, and work. The National Mental Resilience Index could become a new macroeconomic indicator of a country—an indicator of its internal resources. The question is not whether we need it. The question is, are we ready, for the first time in history, to measure psychological capital as seriously as we measure financial capital?