Hi Yuriy, Gérard and Edward,



Every expert in Ukrainian studies knows that during the years of the Soviet Union when Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union, the Soviets saddled Ukraine with a hugely uneconomic power grid and saddled it with other measures to ensure that Ukraine would be unable to function on its own if it ever left the former USSR willingly, or if it was taken by force.



Some of what sunk the USSR in the end, was the truly massive subsidies it spent to keep Ukraine operating.



We also know that NovoRussiya was given by the Soviets to Ukraine in 1954 as an administrative gift. NovoRussiya has been part of Russia prior to the reign of Catherine the Great.



And we know that 97.1% of Crimean's voted in a referendum to join the Russian Federation a year ago. People can caterwaul all they want about unfair elections, etc. but really, 97.1% -- even if 10% or 20% of the votes were fraudulent (on either side) it wouldn't have affected the final result.



Crimean's democratically voted to join Russia, and that is something we all have to accept, whether some like the result or not. The people have spoken.



What we also know is that Ukraine has been fighting a losing economic battle, just as the Soviet designers planned. Ukraine is not a viable economic unit, through no fault of the Ukrainian people.



It cannot continue along the same path, only utter bankruptcy and devastation awaits.



Therefore, things must necessarily change in Ukraine.



Let's admit that the fight is about -- who gets to join Russia and who gets to join the EU.



Let's also admit that the fight is about -- which of the two blocs get the various strategic territories in the country.



Let's admit that everything Ukraine, since 1990 -- is all about a slow-motion conflict (mostly NOT a military conflict no matter what the internet says) about 'who gets what' in Ukraine.



So that is the brief history and the things the experts know as facts about Ukraine.

----

What some people don't know for certain, or aren't willing to state publicly, are that; Yes, the overthrow of President Yanukovitch was probably inspired in a foreign capital, while the 'Orange Revolution' was probably inspired and financed by a different foreign capital.



Not only that, but Julia Tymoshenko was an innocent victim of the competition between blocs. All of us owe Julia a good political appointment, once this is all sorted out.



Also, that the Ukrainian Army was shelling its own citizens in Luhansk and Donetsk for years, maybe decades, because those people had different political beliefs and wanted some measure of autonomy.



Shameful. The shelling part, not the wanting some autonomy part.

----

All parties now should be careful what they wish for.



For in reality, they are fighting for the right to heavily subsidize Ukraine, or whatever part of Ukraine they manage to obtain.



Ukraine was created by the Soviets to be the biggest albatross in the world to deter takeover of the country near the Soviet underbelly. Who could blame the Soviets for such a logical (smart) move? We would've done the same thing, were we in their position.



And it is a massive albatross (through no fault of the Ukrainian people, who are among the best people you could meet) and one that needs billions of dollars of subsidy each month to continue operations.



It does have excellent future potential as a massive tourist destination. Russian Orthodox architecture is everywhere and it is stunning. This should be preserved and many sites should still be named as UNESCO world heritage sites. The splendour of some of these buildings and their locations is staggering.



The logical thing to do, is for the people of the former NovoRussiya (the vast majority of which are ethnic Russians) should vote to rejoin Russia) and Russia can subsidize that territory and those people for the next decades until they can make the necessary energy grid changes with modern technology and other changes, to make NovoRussiya an economically viable unit.



(That's a LOT of subsidy and a LOT of work!)



And the rest of the Ukrainian people would be wise to vote to join the EU, and likewise, the EU will be required to subsidize that part of Ukraine and those people living within that Ukrainian territory for the next decades, until the right changes are brought about to allow it to become an economically-viable unit.



(Again, that's a LOT of subsidy and a LOT of work, on par with the German reunification, or even larger than that effort!)



And that's if the EU manages to obtain the balance of Ukraine (not the NovoRussiya portion of Ukraine) in any negotiated settlement.



There is no doubt in my mind that Ukraine, as a country, cannot continue on its own.



There is also no doubt in my mind that -- neither the EU (even with the U.S. helping) on the one hand -- nor Russia on the other hand -- has the will, or the economic power to obtain and subsidize all of Ukraine, until the built-in imbalances of the Ukrainian economy can be corrected.



War, is the worst answer. Because at the end of that costly endeavor (and the risks of it going international, which means going nuclear) all of the players will still find the same problems existing in the conquered territory!



Staging a war, to decide who gets to subsidize Ukraine (and an even more damaged Ukraine after a concentrated military engagement) is outrageously stupid, surely ranking in the Top 5 stupid things ever done (whatever those happen to be) by humans.



The solution is not war. The solution is not letting Ukraine drift. The solution in this case, can only be diplomacy.



We are either 'up to that task' or we 'aren't up to the task' -- in which case, by extension, the human race is likely doomed to failure.



If this diplomacy fails, every participating politician who is involved in it, should receive an "F" for Fail -- and be removed from office by his/her colleagues.



On Ukraine, there can be no excuse for failure. Risking a nuclear confrontation over Ukraine (Ukraine?) because our diplomacy isn't up to par, is simply not on.



We must be better people than that.



We are better people than that.



All of us should make room for the diplomats, to assist them to inform the public of the affected nations about the true situation that exists in Ukraine (not the popular talking points used to jab at one's political opponents via the media sound bite) and to get ready to help the people of Ukraine, in the territory that our bloc becomes responsible for.



Let the true contest between Russia on the one hand, and the EU/U.S.A. on the other hand, be about who fares better -- the people in EU-Ukraine, or the people in Russian-NovoRussiya.



Let that be the defining word on which political system and which ideology is the better one.



Ideology is nothing. Results are everything.



And if that ends up working in the various Ukrainian groups' favour, nothing would make me happier. They've earned it! It has been a very hard go for them over the past 60 years, at least.



I think our diplomats are up to the task, and I think the Russian diplomats are up to the task. Taking the politics and partisanship out of the conversation will be a large part of the solution.



More excellent commentary by respected thinkers such as this particular PS article is also another way to assist the process (although I do respectfully disagree with some of the points raised and part of the conclusion of this particular Project Syndicate essay)



Best regards, JBS