A Letter To Ukraine

Lucky Ukraine had its first-ever successful gay pride parade back in early June. More than a thousand “LGBT marchers” were joined by Western diplomats and politicians – including Britain’s lesbian Ambassador to Ukraine – protected by a regiment of 5,500 Ukrainian police officers. Every gay demonstrator, local and foreign, was protected by five policemen.

Reuters assures us that Ukrainian counter-protesters were quickly bundled away.

“EuroMaidan was not only against [former President Viktor] Yanukovich, it was against corruption and for human rights as well,” said Ukrainian lawmaker Serhiy Leshchenko. Good to know! This, by the way, is Leshchenko:

Sergil_Leshchenko2

“…for human rights, bigot!”

He is a journalist by profession, who completed a fellowship on “democracy” at Stanford University in 2013, a few months before the start of the Ukrainian Euromaidan protests, and writes for openDemocracy.net, a web publication that has featured contributions by George Soros and Kofi Annan, and is funded by numerous American foundations.

He was elected to the Ukrainian parliament in 2014, following the Euromaidan riots and the coup that ousted democratically-elected President Yanukovych. Jewish Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman, who was also elected to the parliament following the coup, assured Ukrainians that Ukraine would never support gay marriage.

Do I really have to spell it out?

My dear Ukrainians: you’ve been had. You’ve been had badly. Though Ukraine was no paradise under Yanukovych, it is even worse now, with the added humiliations of lost territories, ongoing war, economic collapse, and foreign conquerors gleefully parading your deviants through the streets under armed guard.

If it makes you feel any better, we here in the West were had too. We believed our Prime Ministers — or their equivalents — in the United States and in France. We thought the same things you did about democracy, corruption, and human rights. By the looks of things on this side of the Oder, your country will be the last one to make the mistakes that we did in a long time. That, at least, is worth something.

As far as I remember, there were more than a few Ukrainians with — unlike Mr. Leshchenko — a jawline who participated in the Euromaidan revolt. Where are they now? According to the papers, more than 3000 of them are dead somewhere in Donbass.

I remember one particularly hot-blooded fellow, who declared he would fight “communists, Jews, and Russians for as long as blood flows in my veins.” He was shot to death by the police — Ukrainian, not Russian — in western Ukraine shortly after Yanukovych was ousted. The police promptly declared he committed suicide by shooting himself in the heart as they tried to restrain him. Back of the heart, presumably. A real contortionist, that Muzychko.

His friend, the leader of far-right party Right Sector Dmytro Yarosh, called for the arrest of the police officers that killed Muzychko and the resignation of the Interior Minister. Didn’t happen. Yarosh did end up going to fight Russians in Donbass, where he got injured by an exploding Grad rocket. His Right Sector group was subsumed into the Armed Forces of Ukraine and he stepped down from his position as leader.

I paid close attention to the goings-on in Kiev in late 2013 and the first half of 2014. I had to cancel travel plans to Ukraine because of the overthrow of the government, so I was a little more than personally curious about the situation. I remember watching soaring propaganda clips of nationalist heroes, valiant street warriors, and cheerful blonde couples with cheerful blonde children. I imagine the Ukrainians, much like I am, are a little miffed at the actual outcome of the Euromaidan movement. Promised glory, freedom, and prosperity, they got war and poverty instead. Oh, and a gay parade. Strict adherence to norms de la gay parade will begin generating bread and gold any day now, I am sure.

Look, Ukraine: Vladimir Putin isn’t anybody’s savior. He’s not a golden knight in shining armor. Nor was Yanukovych. Russia isn’t a paradise, and Ukraine was just Russia without the sweet, sweet oil money. But life isn’t, never was, and never will be about what kind of paradise you can secure for yourself on Earth, but what kind of hell you can avoid while you’re here. I’m afraid you will soon discover, if you haven’t already, you’ve picked a worse hell than Putin’s.

Another way to put that is that you, Ukraine, were loudly torn from a nearby, imposing empire and surreptitiously absorbed into a distant, foreign one. Calls for sovereignty, independence, and a Third Way are excellent rhetoric, but the reality is that, overnight, you went from being Little Russia to being the 241st state of the United States of America. And here, friend, gay marriage is the law of the land. You even got American rulers, straight outta Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government.

But did this help with Ukraine’s economy, national pride, or corruption problems? Clearly not; and if you were expecting to learn something about good economics, national pride, and resistance to corruption, you definitely should not have looked to the lands of Bernie Sanders, Angela Merkel, and Hillary Clinton. Our shiny golden capitalist supports Putin. Oops!

The thing is, Ukraine, you never really had a platter of options to choose from in this matter. Taras Shevchenko was a great poet, but he couldn’t move mountains. If he could have, I would have recommended he find some high ones, and move them into a circle around the whole of Ukraine. That might have made things easier, but the real Ukraine is not encircled by natural borders, but is a flat highway between Russia and Germany. And Germany has long been an American gas station.

You never really had a long history as a strong, sovereign state, either. And long and strong the history would need to be, if you were planning on simultaneously giving two continent-sized nuclear powers the finger. Your Cossack Hetmanate of the 17th century was a vassal state, first to Turkey, and then to Russia. The history of the region since then has been much along the same lines — an autonomous region within a Greater Russia of some kind. Despite your de jure independence in 1991, we all know that that subordinate status remained de facto, behind the scenes. That’s what bothered you so much in 2013, after all. I think your mistake was demanding the abolishment of subordination, rather than the formalization of it, and therefore the stabilization of it.

Putin the foreign President has no responsibility for your well-being, but he would have had a little more as your very own President, and a lot more as your Monarch. Czarist Russia was no paradise either, don’t get me wrong, but when was Russia ever a paradise? Frankly, when was any place? I guarantee you, we who live in the West are just as fooled by the television as you are that we are the greatest and happiest people ever to have waddled the Earth. We are nevertheless doing our damned best to replace our democracies and elections with a God-Emperor. Ukraine: go with the God-Emperor you know!

A big difference is that our promised authoritarian strongman is not guaranteed to rule us by the end of the year, though yours was, and remains, reasonably certain to be in power for a long while yet. It’s too bad you threw him out on the command of George Soros. Soros, as you surely know, is not a saint. He is as connected to the CIA and Western oligarchs, Jewish and gentile, as Vladimir Putin is connected to the former KGB and Russian oligarchs, Jewish and gentile. He is also a few orders of magnitude crazier than Putin — Putin isn’t funding #BlackLivesMatter — and has a few orders of magnitude of reasons less to care about you and your dear Ukrainian family.

This is a risk that should have been thought through in 2013!

You see, sovereignty is not just a condition that can be voted on and enacted. Nor is independence. There is no number of parliamentary votes that will guarantee independence, nor share of the popular vote that will bring about sovereignty. Sovereignty and independence are vast, intricate, difficult projects.

  • You need intellectual sovereignty: did your whole government study Ukrainian ways of governing based on Ukrainian ideas in Ukrainian universities under Ukrainian professors?
  • You need status sovereignty: does your whole government read only Ukrainian-based newspapers written by Ukrainians, repeating Ukrainian ideas developed by Ukrainian professors in Ukrainian universities?
  • You need some measure of economic and financial sovereignty: does your country have a reserve of national “fuck you” money? Is it impoverished? Is it deeply in debt? To whom?
  • You need some measure of intelligence sovereignty: is your national intelligence agency well-staffed, well-trained, composed of loyal Ukrainians raised in Ukrainian households and schools, who can beat the KGB and the CIA at their own tradecraft? If they can’t do it at least half of the time, you are scarcely going to be sovereign for long.
  • You need, finally, some measure of physical and military sovereignty: do you have nuclear weapons? Do you have treacherous mountains and deep rivers separating you from your enemies? Is your army experienced, valorous, and well-equipped?

Of course, the answers to most of the above questions will be lackluster at best. Your previous government was financially and economically beholden to Russia. It was not going toe-to-toe with the Russian intelligence services, but was more like being puppeteered by them. Yet at the same time, your citizens looked to the glitter and gold of the West for status. You lacked nuclear weapons and you lacked a powerful military. There is not so much as a steep climb between Ukraine and Russia, or Ukraine and the West.

Now, after the coup, your government is financially beholden to George Soros, the International Monetary Fund, and the U.S. State Department. It is being puppeteered by American agents who studied in Boston and Washington, D.C., and their Ukrainian pals who completed approved courses on “democracy” and “gay rights” at Stanford and Harvard, like Serhiy Leshchenko. You merely switched a nearby, well-known master for a far-away, unknown one. And you know what they say: better the Devil you know.

You should have said “Nyet!” to the West in 2013 and instead worked on extracting concessions from your Yanukovych. With one half or more of the population unsympathetic towards Russia, Yanukovych hardly could have afforded to blow them off forever, on every issue. You could have anchored your Yanukovych to a tolerable compromise and slowly begun the Belarus/Kazakhstan treatment, maintaining autonomy while further integrating with the Russian state. Not a paradise, but not worse than where you are now. I’ve read a little bit about Belarus — doesn’t sound so bad! And a lot of Ukrainian refugees fleeing to Belarus seem to agree with me.

If the Russian situation was truly intolerable, your best bet would have been to smile, stockpile weapons, build connections, pillarize your portion of Ukrainian society, and eventually revolt and submit to the emergent Polish-Austrian Reich of the Visegrad Four of 2036. That, at least, would have been a strategically sound decision with historical precedent, farfetched as it may be.

But a sovereign, independent Ukraine? Free from Russian influence and all other foreign influence? That was a pipe dream, a fever dream produced by 19th century liberalism — a French idea, not a Ukrainian one. And how well is France doing these days?

Ukraine was put in a subordinate position by geography and a particular history of institutions, or lack thereof. To build those institutions, or overcome that geography, requires either a whole new way of thinking, or material and human resources that observably do not physically exist in Ukraine. With the riots, the coup, and the war, what little of those resources that existed has been significantly depleted.

The slowly collapsing U.S. government will loot and abuse Ukraine for all the country is worth in its fight against Russia. Russia will weather such a war of attrition. Ukraine, when the West is done with her, will be poorer and sadder than it was in 2013. At that point, Putin’s Russia will find that conquering it outright will be a walk in the park.

Your boys had hard fists and fiery hearts, Ukraine, but they didn’t have strategy. They were no match for the Russian FSB, let alone the CIA. And they made a big, wrong move. It’s unclear that anything substantial can be done today to fix this situation, except lay down arms, return home, and let the U.S.-installed gay parade government exhaust itself.

In the meantime, you will have to listen to Serhiy Leshchenko. At least you can laugh at his silly face while you’re at it.

Mark Yuray is verified on Gab. Follow him there and on Twitter.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

24 Comments

  1. Im from Ukraine and this doesnt read as letter to Ukrainians, but to Westerners. Entire 13-14 charade was designed to get BIG money from then still stable and prosperous West, in exchange for being a barrier against Russia. And it was possible, even Soros leaks show that he seriously considered creating new South Korea in Ukraine. But Ukrainian oligarchs stood their ground and won. As for now – well, it seems country will be divided. I see no hope for Kiev regime without western $$$, and IMF is silent.

    1. >stable and prosperous

      Sounds like your strategists were watching TV instead of reading books.

      >Ukraine as South Korea

      North Korea was more economically powerful than South Korea before Park Chung-hee seized power in a coup and, as dictator, set the stage for the “tiger economy.”

      If you wanted to become South Korea, you should have pulled off a military coup and begun ruling the country properly like a monarch or secure dictator.

      Instead, you got exactly what you got. Soros-Merkel “democracy,” rule by the State Department and CIA.

      If it’s the Ukrainian oligarchs who are in the way, I can only wonder why Ukrainians are killing Russians and agitating for Soros instead of discreetly assassinating them.

      1. “North Korea was more economically powerful than South Korea ”
        Most People don’t know this but the North had more infrastrcuture, more industry while the south was mostly agrarian with a few ports build by the japs. But as it goes, commis turn everything they touch into shit.

        “before Park Chung-hee seized power in a coup and, as dictator, set the stage for the “tiger economy.””
        They copied Prussia which copied England. Enforcing Capitalism is what the Stein-Hardenberg Reformation of 1807 was by forcfully turn public property into private property and allow people to take loans for the stuff they have to create money. Taiwan did this, South Korea did this, Singapur did this.

        1. Yes. Both the forced communist industrializations and the forced dictatorial modernizations in Asia and Latin America basically prove that “democracy” and “human rights” do not do anything to create economic growth. Seems like one dictator (left or right wing nominally) so long as they are secure in their power, can make a unilateral decision to create industry, and have it be done. Violence works! Force works!

          Obviously commies always screw it up eventually, and their forced industrializations destroy a lot of traditionally builty-up capital, but they sure as hell didn’t need democracy and human rights to build those chemical plants.

          Asian “Tigers” disprove that democracy and capitalism go together.

          Which of course begs the question: if Ukraine wanted a strong economy, why was it begging for democracy, and not a smart dictator?

          1. “why was it begging for democracy, and not a smart dictator?”

            Is it really that surprising that after ~75 years of Soviet dictatorship, they’re not inclined toward another dictatorship? You’re going to have to find another way to sell this, maybe finding a local Codreanu would be a good start.

  2. Not just a letter to Ukraine, but to the world.

    Whatever you do, don’t let the globalist cabal “Westernise” you. What they mean by the term, and what actually made the West successful are two entirely different things.

  3. Once more the american AltRight tries to pander to russia having no sense of european cultures rivalries and sticking them all together cause they some sort look the same.

    “My dear Ukrainians: you’ve been had. You’ve been had badly.”

    I did some business in Ukraine early this year and this attempt to now lecture Ukrainians cause there is some fag parade and thats now the end of the nation is pathetic. Its just pathetic. Great freedom means great contrasts and ethnic russian Ukrainians as well as the pure breed ones rather have a rainbow flag having in the street then a red soviet flag that flies everywhere across the Novorussian zone, where people were REALY fucked over and russia stole all their heavy industry.

    ” a French idea, not a Ukrainian one. And how well is France doing these days?”
    Remind yourself of that next time you see the french Generation Identitare, Front National or any of those other fuckers trying to sell you their racket as white resistance.

    1. >projecting

      I’m European, from a place with much more violent rivalries than Ukraine.

    2. Lenin and Stalin created Ukraine as a nation-state. So you can’t get much more sovok than the UkSSR.

  4. The West took advantage of the legitimate concerns of certain Ukrainians, especially in the Western portion of the country. But if Putin and the Russians hadn’t placed such low value on Ukrainian concerns in the first place and been more on guard against subversion, this probably wouldn’t have happen (an outcome basically bad for all involved except the US and allies).

  5. >”If it makes you feel any better, we here in the West were had too. We believed our Prime Ministers — or their equivalents — in the United States and in France. We thought the same things you did about democracy, corruption, and human rights.

    Looking at the disastrous administration of the foreign vassal states (free trip to Libya, anyone?), and indeed the west itself, it makes you wonder if USG itself doesn’t know itself why it was successful, and perpetuates bad advice based on this misunderstanding.

    It reminds me of those parents who had one or two well-behaved children (out of a combination of randomness and genes) and then aggressively proselytize about every single parenting choice they made along the way, as if those are the only contributors to the outcome. My well-behaved child had a lot of free reign, therefore all children will become well behaved by not setting boundaries!

    Then again, this may all just be cynically evil. This always seems to be the perennial question in foreign policy.

  6. Mark – I think there are VERY few places which historically have had more violent rivalries than Ukraine – certainly in Europe, and probably World-wide: this potentially rich land is soaked in blood.

    I tend to agree with Anatoly – the Gay Parade was probably more for Western Consumption than from any ideological conviction, and intended to show the cultural distance between the thinking in Kiev and Moscow, where such parades are forbidden, so let’s not get too concerned over some kind of LGBT tsunami about to flood Ukraine.

    But more seriously, isn’t your letter just one more unwanted piece of advice from a Westerner to the Ukrainians? If I were a Ukrainian your comment “…better the devil you know…” would be met with amazement – it is precisely because they know the devil so well that the Maidan happened. I can’t argue with the points you made about sovereignty with relation to Ukraine, but even with the loss of some of its territory Ukraine has at least some say in the construction of its own future, which it would not have if it joined Putin’s Eurasian Economic Area.

    You say that Ukrainians were duped into facing Westward – I just don’t think that’s true. They are a hard-headed practical folk – they have to be. Millions cross the border to Poland every year, to work, trade and explore. On either side of the Polish-Ukrainian border the landscape is the same, the people and the traditions are very similar, and yet crossing the border they enter a country that they could have, and don’t – new highways, neat houses and prosperous farms and towns, with much of that financed by the European Union. 25 years ago Ukraine had a marginally higher per capita GNP than Poland, and to-day Poland’s is double theirs, and the distance is widening. Nearly a million Ukrainians work in Poland, keeping their families afloat at home. They see a police force that is not corrupt, an administration that works, and the general economic progress that Poland has made within the EU. They were not duped – they just wanted to be in on the act, which Russia, with all its wealth, could not offer them.

    1. So what’s the end-play here? Take the IMF money, build your infrastructure, and run?

      Mouth pieties while quietly keeping your true cultural feelings to yourself and waiting for the US economic empire to collapse?

      Letting your children be indoctrinated into the Western death-cult, so that ten, fifteen, twenty years from now you don’t recognize the next generation?

      I’m willing to bet on which one Soros is pulling for.

    2. Poland had a much better starting position. It’s economy was nowhere near as distorted by central planning, nor was it an integrated component of a (disintegrating) empire. It undertook shock therapy early and started reaping the benefits soon after. During the 2000s, Poland of course got access to a flood of EU subsidies that were in per capita terms comparable to what Russia got from hydrocarbons.

      It would have been more logical for Ukrainians to ask why they were performing much worse than not just Poland, but, say, Belarus (which despite its authoritarianism is widely acknowledged to be far better off than Ukraine, and more ordered and less corrupt than both Ukraine and Russia, despite a lack of both natural resources and substantial foreign aid).

      Blaming Finno-Ugric katsaps and starting up a Westernization cargo cult is intellectually easier, though.

      1. Akarlin – I agree. Perhaps in the ex-Soviet Union geospace lack of natural resources tends to make people resourceful, and make do with what they can, which is what I see happening in Belarus. A surfeit of such resources can be a curse or a blessing, depending on how they are exploited.

        The semi-independence of Belarus is useful to Moscow, providing a cordon sanitaire between the EU and Russia proper, and wily Lukachenko has exploited this as best he can, fully aware that Russia could swallow up his country in a couple of days, and the World wouldn’t even blink. It also helps that Russians view Belarussians as placid provincials, speaking a funny dialect of Russian, and not known for trouble-making. I see the Russians as observing Belarus closely, but meddling very little, not seeing the need.

        I am aware that you use the term “…Westernization cargo-cult…” pejoratively, but surely this is how ALL societies grow and develop, for good or ill. A successful technique or ideology is often imported wholesale, and at first is used uncritically. After a while its effectiveness is assessed, adjustments are made, and is applied again, and so on. Whether it’s spoons, cars, rockets or ideas, the process is the same. Perhaps from your perspective Westernization is a bad thing, but for many societies outside looking in, it ain’t necessarily so…

        1. >Union geospace lack of natural resources tends to make people resourceful, and make do with what they can, which is what I see happening in Belarus.

          Even though I’m a bit of a market fetishist, I have on numerous occasions said that old-school socialism is way better than post-Communism that Eastern Europe adopted after the fall of USSR, and Belarus is the living proof. In the rest of Eastern Europe, instead of privatizations and transition what happened was simply plunder of state enterprises coupled with massive bloating of state bureaucracies (the Eastern European dream is to be an official in state bureaucracy, to work little… to go to bed late, getup late in the morning, to go to job late, and leave it early without having done much, or, for that matter, any, work), and welfare services which all left the economy in worse shape than during Communism (which is obvious come to think of it, ceteris paribus it’s better to have a million people working even in unprofitable, and not all of them were unprofitable mind you, state enterprises, than having a million people working in state bureaucracy).

          >Perhaps from your perspective Westernization is a bad thing, but for many societies outside looking in, it ain’t necessarily so…

          It’s cargo culty for that very reason, exchanging Soviet Communism for Anglo communism isn’t a step forward… Westernization nowadays means, not adopting the policies that made the West rich in the first place, but adopting current policies of the West, exactly the policies destroying the West economically and in every other way (democracy and litanies of rights, Keynesian economics, LGBTQIAA+, etc.).

        2. Westernization cargo-cult is not just import, but imitation without understanding why it worked.

          That is what you can see in the Ukraine.
          Their police in Kiev does now look like US-policemen, but the crime in Kiev increased just like in the 1990s.

          Look at them and the new crime-statistics: http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2059413.html

        3. I am aware that you use the term “…Westernization cargo-cult…” pejoratively, but surely this is how ALL societies grow and develop, for good or ill. A successful technique or ideology is often imported wholesale, and at first is used uncritically.

          Okay, sure enough. I am not a hardcore nativist or someone who denies the objective superiority of Western civilization.

          But the key nuance is that some cargo cults actually build a (real) radio tower and start acquiring cargo (at which point one can safely say it is no longer a cargo cult and probably wasn’t even one to begin with).

          But Ukraine appears like what the Marquis de Custine wrote of Russia in 1839:

          I don’t reproach the Russians for being what they are; what I blame them for is their desire to appear to be what we [Europeans] are… They are much less interested in being civilized then in making us believe them so… They would be quite content to be in effect more awful and barbaric than they actually are, if only others could thereby be made to believe them better and more civilized.

          Here’s just one of many real life metaphors for this: Bureacrats and “activists” turning out to an Anti-Corruption Forum organized by Saakashvili… in Lexuses and Mercedes. Mitleser’s police example is another one.

      2. All the Baltic states were an “integrated component” of the empire but still have higher GDP per capita Poland and blow Belarus out of the fucking water.

        1. Yeah, but Baltics hate Communism (Mayor of Vilnius is an anarcho-capitalist for crying out aloud). They see it as something foreign to them, something imposed by a foreign oppressor, whereas the rest of Eastern Europeans imbibed Communism as a core of their national identity. Now, Ukrainians might have toppled a few Lenin statues, but the crucial thing to note there is that it was essentially an anti-Russian, rather than anti-Communist action.

    3. “Nearly a million Ukrainians work in Poland, keeping their families afloat at home”

      Same could be said of Poles in the UK. Is this a stable model for preserving peoples? Just passing them along the line westward?

  7. Ukraine’s old name ‘the Ukraine’ meaning ‘the Borderland’ belies it as a geographical rather than national space. Much like Lebanon was ‘the Lebanon’.

    One has to understand however that the lure of money is strong. Ukrainians do not seem to even have nationalist motives for the most part, their motives appear to be economic, and in some ways rather sinister, since they plan to leave the Ukraine and head to places like Germany and the UK where they can achieve higher salaries. I’m not exactly sure what is ‘nationalist’ about such aspirations. They seem to drip with the same individualist cynicism that abounds in the West.

    Ukrainians made the big mistake of thinking…

    “If only we had better people external to our country!”

    Rather than…

    “If only we had better people internal to our country!”

    It was only after the Maidan that it became apparent that the people in the Ukraine were just as corrupt as the oligarchs across the border. There wasn’t a ruble’s difference between them. These lands don’t have a future outside of Russia’s sphere, except for the most western regions which will probably be absorbed by Poland at some point because they actually belong to Poland. If there are those in Ukraine with Polish ancestry perhaps, who have a distinct identity from the original Russian one, they should move to Lwow and support this annexation. Russia has no interest in Lwow.

    1. “since they plan to leave the Ukraine and head to places like Germany and the UK where they can achieve higher salaries. ”

      In Germany there was a scandal around Visas for Ukrainians that was uncovered around 2005 and you know what happend to all those Ukrainians who got german visas? They just moved right on to USA, Canada, Australia. These people are doing the rational thing. Ukraine hast around 44,2 million people with an average age of 40 and a birth rate of 1,3 children. The Population shrinks every year by 0,6 and people emigrating to leave this ruined, failed country. In 30-40 years it will be reduced by half and in 100 years this place will be practicly non existend anymore. You think these lands don’t have a future outsides russias phere? The Russian-asian social culture is what ruined their society in the first place. This country has no future anyway so whats the big deal about those people leaving for the US to booster the white population there?

  8. Just another ukrainian August 19, 2016 at 10:16 am

    Hello there. I think I have to make some things clearer for writers in the West. With all the respect, it seems that you have the wrong image of Russia in your heads. In your world Russia looks like the last nationalist country, and Putin is a savior of Europe or something like that. You see, that’s where you are entirely wrong. Russia is just an oligarchy that plays with right values when it wants to. The population is being slowly replaced with immigrants, just like it is in Europe, government doesn’t allow right political organizations etc. In XX century USSR exploited “useful idiots” from the left-wing, now russians try to do the same with the rights.
    I also can’t see jow you can compare Ukraine to Belarus. We have 4.5 times as much people as it does and I really doubt that russians were willing to have another protectorate to invest lots of money in. As of Kazahstan, it has even more natural resourses than Russia.
    As I see it, there were no good choices in 2013. Economic decline was worsened by war, but it started long ago. Russia was eventually going to try to expand its sphere of influence anyway, it was only a matter of time, and I don’t believe that Yanukovich in power could have stopped them.
    So yes, we are in some deep shit, but now that I look back in time I don’t think that things could have been changed much. Now we, right ukrainians, can only for the new wave of nationalism to come, like it did in 20s after the WW1.

Comments are closed.