One can often hear from current leaders, in particular, from the Government of Ukraine, that by signing the Association Agreement with the EU, Ukraine loses much. They mean that exports to Russia will significantly be reduced, and, as a result, jobs will also be reduced. Recently the Kremlin was confirming this too (we hope that nothing had been agreed with the official Kyiv), organizing (sometimes even without declarations) trade wars (like the recent “chocolate“ one). As if to resist such Kremlin’s pressure, the current Ukrainian government has come up with an explanation that this requires considerable resources. And these funds (something 10 to 15 billion or more 150 – 160 billion US dollars) would have to be provided by the EU. To confirm this even are even taken out of the context the words of ex – President of Poland A. Kwaśniewski (Why have they suddenly begun to listen to him, despite having openly ignored everything he had been speaking about before?).
At this, few people pointed out that in the state of Ukraine there is neither Strategy nor an action Plan, nor even a list of events (with specific dates and the responsible) for the implementation of the Association Agreement with the EU. Is this acceptable if someone is really going to sign (and most importantly – to fulfill) the Agreement?
Because, for example, even basic preparation for the celebration of some outstanding personalities or any ministerial event is inconceivable without an approved plan. And here – a government’s document and… without the plan development! But the fate of the Ukrainian nation is being decided! And suddenly, no one knows what to do right now, tomorrow, next week, in a year.
He who has ever been involved in the preparation of the event, even in the EU countries, not to mention the post-Soviet space, has long realized that in Vilnius no documents of the Association will be signed.
So all this time in order to distract attention from burning problems, they have been “leading” Ukrainians “up the garden path”. Europeans have been fooled too: what if Euro-Simpletons get sentimental and fork out? Our Dodgers know well how to dispose of bucks — at least EURO 2012 had taught them.
Not sure if they have been “talking through their hat“ with Moscow. In any case, the immediate or even advance (taking into consideration the “closed” Russian Presidential communications in Italy — a NATO country) reaction of the Kremlin leader during his visit abroad, when he said he was not going to revise the gas contracts, proves that he was aware of what was being discussed in Ukraine. So, we continue to remain a protectorate of the Kremlin, and the so-called President of Ukraine is in reality only the Governor-General of Little Russia with all the indulgences. And the Cabinet of Ministers is a veiled Gosplan of the Ukrainian SSR in its worst version!
Did the Ukrainian authorities foresee the response of Europeans to its lies? It turns out that they did not even try. And anyway, why waste their energy on such “nonsense”, if it “is under Moscow “ anyway? The Kremlin has not been punishing for lies for centuries!
It seems that history of 1990s repeats itself — Ukraine’s gaining independence. Then the Ukrainians, and later the first President of the modern Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk had been massively misinformed (distracting attention from the need for profound reforms) that the Ukrainian SSR had the best economy in the Soviet Union. And indeed the then head of the new Ukrainian was eventually convinced that our country was producing nearly as much electricity and coal as Great Britain was; smelted metal — more than France, the UK or Germany, and more tractors than the USA. And so on. The list was endless. Are you shocked? The main thing is that the lie did work (everybody, including the people, had been lulled, attention from the “transparent grabbing» had been distracted).
But few doubted: Do we really need it? No one reflected on the fact that the Ukrainian economy had been created for the needs of the Soviet Union and was the most costly in energy, environmentally unfriendly, technologically lagging behind and so on in the world. Thus, in the early 1990s we, as a new independent state, were in the form of a fragment of the former Soviet economy (and we live so to this day). Our enterprises and scientific planning organizations were “tied up“ mainly to Russian partners. So was being built the Soviet-like cooperation performing primarily political tasks — to control everything, the Ukrainian economy included.
As a result, already then there was a need for radical restructuring of the entire economy. And in fact for building it anew.
Did the leaders of the state understand this? Yes, they did. But somehow in their own way. The “Fifth Column“ soon got orientated and where their potential or the then agents were, they developed cooperation. Enterprises or organizations, headed by «unreliable“ (according to the Kremlin) people, went bankrupt because of broken cooperative ties. The Parliament of Ukraine was deeply concerned with this, in particular, MPs V. M. Chornovil, S. I. Khmara, I. R. Yuhnovskyi, later A. D. Buteyko (he supported the idea of reformatting the economy, while still an Adviser to the President before his election to the Parliament) and others, mainly People’s Deputies.
It was I. R. Yuhnovsky who proposed and developed the concept of a deep reform of the economy, based on the needs not of some other state, but of the independent Ukraine.
Individual sectors of the economy had to be significantly reduced, their employees — to be retrained (e. g. mining, chemical and metallurgy). Something like what Poland did at the time.
Had to be created and to develop new industries, producing a product, competitive in the civilized world, and to create jobs for Ukrainians. Why, for example, not to develop IT technology? Now, this niche is already taken!
At the first stage, in accordance with the ideas of I. R. Yuhnovskyi, had to be thoroughly inventoried the abilities and needs of Ukraine as an independent state. The question arose: who would do this? Whom to trust this task? Unfortunately, there was no answer then, there is no answer now. And therefore — nothing has been done.
The concept of development of the Ukrainian economy had to be based on inventory and to take into account the influence of outer factors, in particular of those coming from the Kremlin. Such an economy would have to focus as much as possible on the domestic consumer (for example, like in France). We would import only things which we can’t produce perfectly well, such as cars. And would export what we can do better than any of our foreign partners, and not to Ukrainians’ disadvantage.
Unfortunately, the ideas of People’s Deputy I. R. Yuhnovskyi had not been implemented either by the first or by the second Presidents of Ukraine, or by any Cabinet of Ministers.
Of course, for such an ambitious state-creative project one year is not enough, and even 5. But for almost four years, which had the current government, it could have done at least something. But they did almost nothing, though they had like none before them, all the plenitude of the power. Unfortunately! But all the while they have been complaining that we seem to be squeezed out of the air, missile markets and the like. Do we really need it? Why is it that a Belgian can live (and quite well!) without his own aviation, but a Ukrainian — cannot? I could voice a lot of such questions. But eventually there comes the time to get answers to them.
As a result, Ukraine remains a Russian satellite, whose economy’s structure is that of a colony, and therefore — with the colonial administration (now it is fashionable to call it management), including all the authorities, supposedly headed by the President of Ukraine.
In these circumstances, it is not difficult for the Kremlin to “pull the string“, and from Kiev forever will be heard all over the world the moan about job cuts or something like that. That’s what happened this time, especially when speaking about some crucial decisions. For example, on European integration.
At this, no one moans when the Kremlin creates businesses, replacing Ukrainian exports. There was no moan when “big Ukrainians“ were creating jobs for foreign firms buying some Hyundais or paving roads in Ukraine, etc!
In the end, it turns out that under this government the question arises: either the territory of the state of Ukraine or the Ukrainianhood. The problem of Ukrainianization of the whole today’s territory of Ukraine”, unfortunately, cannot be solved by this power either.
Therefore, he who will be able to give an adequate answer to all the outlined questions, will determine the fate of the state of Ukraine for many decades. In particular, of the Association and Ukraine’s joining the EU.
