Ukraine was hit really hard by the 2008 economic crisis and is still struggling to recover. It has beenforecast that Ukraine will be cash-strapped in the near future and are scheduled to face approximately $ 8 billion in debt repayments next year alone. Considering all of this on the horizon, it is only sensible that Yanukovych and the Ukrainian government demand that the European Union put forward a solid plan – in the interest of its citizens- to help the soften the heavy blow that the Ukrainian economy will inevitably suffer as it is exposed to a new economic market. The EU has offered just $800 million in aid as a potential insulator against the immediate effects of joining the EU. When one considers that Ukraine thinks the immediate blow of an EU deal to its economy will be in the region of $20 billion, the EU’s proposal does not even begin to address any issues. Russia on the other hand, have offered $15 billion of economic aid to Ukraine to help mitigate any potential economic disasters in the near future. Although there are doubts as to the long term effects of the Russian offer on Ukraine’s economy, Yanukovych cannot be blamed for holding out for a better deal for his country. It is what he was elected to do. Throwing his country into a monumental deal without taking into proper consideration the immediate side effects would be amateurish.
This is supposedly the match that light the "Revolution of Dignity" that completely ignored the western Ukrainian (ethnic Russian) populace.
You're almost right. The match was the attempt to take the Russian deal and, knowing full well what that meant, people took to the streets.
That $15 billion would be an investment in a puppet state at Putin's beck and call. Belarus is all the evidence you need, but you can also see how well the CSTO is going for Armenia. Utterly worthless deals.
The fact CSTO has a defense clause which Russia has failed to follow through on multiple times? You talk economic growth, cherry picking stats you like, when I'm talking about the core foundation of a defense pact. The defense. Not once has the group actually defended a member state during an armed conflict, specifically the ongoing fight between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
It is a toothless pact. I'll let Lord handle your stat nonsense, since that wasn't the point of me mentioning CSTO.
Do you know what happened in Ukraine in the week before Feb 24 2022? Or the 8 years before that?
Yes, I know what was actually happening in the country, but I'm sure you have some RT propaganda that only a Russian would be dumb enough to believe.
https://natoassociation.ca/why-yanukovych-was-right-to-exercise-caution-with-the-eu-ukraine-deal-part-2/
Canadian NATO-friendly website February 9, 2014
This is supposedly the match that light the "Revolution of Dignity" that completely ignored the western Ukrainian (ethnic Russian) populace.
You're almost right. The match was the attempt to take the Russian deal and, knowing full well what that meant, people took to the streets.
That $15 billion would be an investment in a puppet state at Putin's beck and call. Belarus is all the evidence you need, but you can also see how well the CSTO is going for Armenia. Utterly worthless deals.
There's data available here if you want to see the numbers yourself:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/UKR/ukraine/gdp-gross-domestic-product
1992 was the start of CSTO.
Ukraine GDP per capita 1992 = $1418
Ukraine GDP per capita 2021 = $4828
Armenia GDP per capita 1992 = $356
Armenia GDP per capita 2021 = $4967
Belarus GDP per capita 1992 = $1668
Belarus GDP per capita 2021 = $7490
Care to elaborate on your comment in light of this data?
The fact CSTO has a defense clause which Russia has failed to follow through on multiple times? You talk economic growth, cherry picking stats you like, when I'm talking about the core foundation of a defense pact. The defense. Not once has the group actually defended a member state during an armed conflict, specifically the ongoing fight between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
It is a toothless pact. I'll let Lord handle your stat nonsense, since that wasn't the point of me mentioning CSTO.
You do not dispute the economics from the article or my comments.