Mr.Reason made a forecast: Chance


20% Petro Poroshenko

30% Yulia Tymoshenko

50% Volodymyr Zelenskiy

Zelensky is a well known comedian who has carefully indicated to want to talk to Russia.
Ukraine would be obviously better off with a Russian orientation, but US and EU have pulled the country towards West.
Still, they are not able to present any viable economical, and security option. It’s a geopolical game cynically playd at the cost of destruction of a big country in Europe.
Nothing will help – the western elites have once again demonstrated its inability to grasp the situation.
Soon we will wittnes the demice of the EU, and the shrinkage of the US empire.
USA will become stronger after a period of crisises, EU countries will become to apendixes of the Euro-Asian continent, lead by China, India and Russia.

Feb 24, 2019 06:21PM michalbod made a comment: Why do you think Ukraine would be better off with Russian orientation? After Soviet Union collapse Economies and GDP per capita of Poland and Ukraine were very similar. Ukriaine tied themselves with Russia and Poland with western Europe. Now GDP per capita in Poland is five times of Ukrainian… Difference was huge in 2014 already so can not be attributed to war damage.

Feb 25, 2019 02:20AM Myfuamerica made a comment:

Valid question. There are multiple reasons.
At first let’s make sure we do compare Ukraine and Poland, as you have mentioned, in the right light, since there are significant differences…
1. Being a Slavic nation Poland became influenced by the western world by turning to Catholicism in 966. Since then it was competing with Russia for influence and land among others based on religious rivalry. Ukraine in opposition, is mainly Russian Orthodox, it was the birthplace of Russia (Kiev was Capital of Russia), it is comprised by territories derived mainly from Russia, it’s population speaks Russian to 90%, and is basically same nation.

2. Ukraine was part of USSR, Poland was not. This is as far of significance, since out of 15 USSR republics 13 were subsidized, mainly by Russia, and Belo-Russia. All other 13 USSR republics have lived above their economical abilities thanks to Russia’s subsidies. Russia was a historic exception, in that being an Empire it was always poorer than it’s satellites. For example, Georgia during the times of USSR in late 80’th spent per capita annually USD40000.00, where as Russia only USD10000.00. One may take in to the account, that it was the Russian Federation under Boris Yeltsin who dissolved the USSR, not the other republics, who’s population voted in a referendum overwhelmingly to maintain the USSR! Therefore, it is not surprising, that almost all former USSR republics who lost the subsidies from Russia are economically worse then before, unless they have natural resources, like crude oil. Further more, many former socialistic countries which were not part of USSR, like Romania, Bulgaria are much worse off then before, either. They lost tremendous part of their population, and lost whole industries. Check out the WHO Human Development Index of those countries, and one will see the decline. Even the Baltic states, which have shown a steep increase in their GDP after USSR’s disintegration are now in trouble, due to Russia’s reaction to the sanctions since 2014, and especially high level of Russo-phobia in Baltic states. Russia has built out it’s sea ports which have drawn away the business from the Baltic states, which where the main transit route for Russia’s sea transportation needs in the western hemisphere. This business constitutes up to 60% of the GDP of these countries, which will very soon be completely lost. The Baltic states have any way also lost almost 50% of it’s population since down fall of the USSR, so one can imagine where to the future development will lead. Same happens now in Ukraine, which was lured by the West in to a disruption of the close interlock with Russia, and has suffered a tremendous decline. In only five years Ukraine lost ca.9 Million inhabitants to immigration, mostly to Russia.

3. Besides those economical realities, one has to note the security aspect Russia’s, which was drawn several times by it’s western neighbors in to wars, the last one was WW2, of which almost the entire armored combat was absorbed by the nations of the USSR (80%). (Read: “Conjuring Hitler, How America and UK made the Third Reich”; and “Nazinexus”). Ukraine, with it’s over 2200km long borders, along with the Black Sea, and especially the Crimea peninsula, are of strategic importance for the Russia’s defense ability, similar as to Samaria and Judeah, and Golan Hight’s for Israel. Russia will not tolerate NATO to take over Ukraine – this would trigger a military intervention, which will be different than the accession of the Crimea peninsula, which was based on a referendum covered by the international law. Based on this it is clear, that Ukraine, if associated with West, will become to a constant irritation source, and therefore this status will not be beneficial to the Ukrainian population. For the West, especially USA, UK this approach, similar like in other regions in China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, South-Korea-North Korea, EU,Germany-Russia, is part of the strategy Divide and Rule, to attempt to contain Russia, to prevent the establishment of a unified Euro-Asian economical space in disregard of the needs of the nations involved.

4. Whether the US elite will be successful in preventing the Euro-Asian continent to take over it’s dominant position is very questionable. The military advantage of the West, which enabled the European countries to dominate the world, and after WW2 the US domination, is already lost to Russia, and very soon to China as well. This will ultimately lead to loss of influence the West is accustomed since ca. 1600.

This too is a reason, why rather in mid term perspective – 10-20 years, it will be for Ukraine, as well as for a majority of other countries of benefit to have rather good relations to the Euro-Asian economies China, India, Russia, Europe. USA will become to a very strong country among others, but the influence it has today is rather a historic exception, intense and short.