--- amadeus amadeus <amadeus482000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> So just to clarify (and I am not necessarily
> disagreeing): Are you saying that US/US interests
> lack
> the capability of imperializing Ukraine in any way?
> Does a lack of fundamental change in the region, in
> the wake of the elections, make this so?
>
What I'm saying is this -- the word "Ukraine" means "borderland," which is appropriate since it is between two great powers, the EU (taken collectively) one one side and a rising (better: reemerging) Russia on the other. As such, it can, and has to, play both sides against each other without really alienating either, which would be disastrous (good-bye oil!). (I don't think the US matters so much here -- the EU and Russia are who have leverage over Ukraine. The US has almost zero economic ties with Ukraine, as far as I know.) This puts it into a situation similar to that of Kazakhstan, which analogously plays Russia and China off each other, and, somewhat more tenuously, Uzbekistan (Russia and Iran in this case), and at the opposite end of the spectrum from somplace like Armenia, which is trapped between its only ally, Russia, and a lot of hostile states (with the result that Russia controls Armenia's entire energy system, inclusing the nuke plant).
No change of leadership is going to change this situation, unless Russia or the EU totally collapse.
===== Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo