Improving Ukraine's fate

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how to make Ukraine as free, wealthy, powerful and secure as possible? It doesn't seem like a frequently discussed topic here, so there is no need for specifics. Wether it's some idea for a Ukraine being set up in a CP victory before breaking free and forming an alliance system of its own (perhaps a sort of Intermarum, but with Ukraine as the dominant member), or remaining separate from Russia in the aftermath of WWI, or a scenario with a later PoD - anything goes, as long as it clearly improves Ukraine's fate (preferably more or less as much as possible, given the constraints resulting from the PoD itself) and the divergence is after 1900.

I think this might be done with a POD as late as 1991 if you can somehow get Ukraine to emulate Poland more. Sadly, I don't know enough about the period say what exactly would need to change and who would need to be in charge.

I think Ukraine would have to federate with Poland to survive the Red Army. Even then, I doubt if Ukraine could hold onto the areas east of the Dneiper River.

Zaius said:

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how to make Ukraine as free, wealthy, powerful and secure as possible? It doesn't seem like a frequently discussed topic here, so there is no need for specifics. Wether it's some idea for a Ukraine being set up in a CP victory before breaking free and forming an alliance system of its own (perhaps a sort of Intermarum, but with Ukraine as the dominant member), or remaining separate from Russia in the aftermath of WWI, or a scenario with a later PoD - anything goes, as long as it clearly improves Ukraine's fate (preferably more or less as much as possible, given the constraints resulting from the PoD itself) and the divergence is after 1900.

Click to expand...

If Ukraine wants to become prosperous, it needs a close ally to guide it through the 20th century. Ukraine doesn't even need to "survive" communism. If the Bolsheviks somehow decide to take a course on the NEP and other more calm ways of socialism and if the Soviet Union will be formed more like the European Union, Ukraine will have time to develop their potential. Of course, Russia should not be led by Stalin and his like. Ukraine has always been the breadbasket of the Soviet Union and had great opportunities in the development of industry and science in the OTL. All you need - it's just favorable circumstances. Then, when the Soviet Union falls apart (if it falls apart at all), Ukraine will meet the 21st century with a large population, a fairly high standard of living and well-developed industry.

Incognito said:

I think this might be done with a POD as late as 1991 if you can somehow get Ukraine to emulate Poland more. Sadly, I don't know enough about the period say what exactly would need to change and who would need to be in charge.

Click to expand...

In OTL post-soviet Ukraine can't do anything on its own and during the chaos of the nineties will be ruined what remained of the infrastructure of the Soviet Union, no matter who is in charge of the country and which policies will follow the state.

Dukakis wins; Marshal Plan II.

Breshnev never give Crimea and Novorossiya to Ukraine.

after Soviet collapse, Ukraine had less Russian, and more independent minded. It sought close relation with Poland, and later follow Poland to EU.

That thread beg the question - qui Belarus? what would happens there?

PhilippeO said:

Breshnev never give Crimea and Novorossiya to Ukraine.

after Soviet collapse, Ukraine had less Russian, and more independent minded. It sought close relation with Poland, and later follow Poland to EU.

Click to expand...

Well, it happened in OTL. Brezhnev never gave Novorossiya and Crimea to Ukraine. Because it was already been done before him by Lenin and Khrushchev. And the EU is not the solution to all problems. Even if somehow Ukraine joins the EU, it will still be devastated country of 2.5 world and its citizens will simply serve as cheap labor force in the West. If joining EU means that endless hordes of economists and engineers from all over Europe will come to help in recovering, than certainly. But since when the EU has become a charity organization?

What am I doing said:

Well, it happened in OTL. Brezhnev never gave Novorossiya and Crimea to Ukraine. Because it was already been done before him by Lenin and Khrushchev. And the EU is not the solution to all problems. Even if somehow Ukraine joins the EU, it will still be devastated country of 2.5 world and its citizens will simply serve as cheap labor force in the West. If joining EU means that endless hordes of economists and engineers from all over Europe will come to help in recovering, than certainly. But since when the EU has become a charity organization?

Click to expand...

Indeed.

The one clear benefit of joining the EU would be a significant political shift westwards, severely limiting Russian influence.

Massive Entente military support to Poland, the Ukrainian People's Republic - and probably other separatist and anti-communist movements as well - results in a considerably more successful Kiev Operation (or an equivalent), allowing them to secure most of the territory of Ukraine and possibly Belarus. Following the much more favorable peace treaty, Ukraine resumes its' existence either as a quasi-independent Republic or as part of a larger Międzymorze federation led by Poland.

Obviously, both as a technically independent country and as part of a federation, Ukraine would have to cope with Polish meddling in their affairs, and Entente meddling in general, but I imagine they would still be more independent than as an SSR for 70 years. Avoiding Stalin's rule, this Ukraine would also avoid a major demographic catastrophe - the Holodomor. The existence of a more or less independent and separate Ukraine from 1918. would over time forge a much stronger and less divided Ukrainian identity than what we have today. With its considerable natural resources ("the breadbasket of Europe" etc.) Ukraine can look forward to developing into a relatively prosperous state.

Zaius said:

Indeed.

The one clear benefit of joining the EU would be a significant political shift westwards, severely limiting Russian influence.

Click to expand...

And about 10 billion euros yearly of structural funds and CAP payments.

marcinL said:

And about 10 billion euros yearly of structural funds and CAP payments.

Click to expand...

So if Ukraine join EU, they would receive 10 billion euros yearly?
That would solve current Ukraine financial problem, so they need to join asap.

MonAngel said:

So if Ukraine join EU, they would receive 10 billion euros yearly?
That would solve current Ukraine financial problem, so they need to join asap.

Click to expand...

1) That's more or less the amount Poland receives.

2) Yeah, right. Is it sarcasm? Anyway, IIRC during the "Orange Revolution" or somewhere around EU powers said that "we can talk about Ukraine membership in 25 years". That was in time when economy was rapidly developing. Since that political situation in Ukraine did not improved and economy was seriously hurt during crisis. So maybe in next 25 years?

What am I doing said:

And the EU is not the solution to all problems. Even if somehow Ukraine joins the EU, it will still be devastated country of 2.5 world and its citizens will simply serve as cheap labor force in the West. If joining EU means that endless hordes of economists and engineers from all over Europe will come to help in recovering, than certainly. But since when the EU has become a charity organization?

Click to expand...

Poland has joined the EU and became a source of "cheap labor force in the West" but that doesn't seem to be a bad thing as a large part of Polish GDP depends on Poles working in the West and sending the money back home.

MonAngel said:

So if Ukraine join EU, they would receive 10 billion euros yearly?
That would solve current Ukraine financial problem, so they need to join asap.

Click to expand...

Sadly, I read that E.U. said they are halting developmental aid for new members. If Ukraine joined around the same time as Poland or the Baltics however...

marcinL said:

And about 10 billion euros yearly of structural funds and CAP payments.

Click to expand...

Ah, more money to settle in the pockets of corrupt officials without reaching its destination. How nice.
Also, increased competition and sanitary or ecological standards of EU may lead to the fact that in the first two years many Ukrainian manufacturers will close (especially in the light and food industries). Opening of the EU market will lead to price increase of what is inside Ukraine cheaper than abroad as export will be much more profitable than selling at home. And while prices are increasing, the average salary will remain the same. Decline in production will lead to growth of unemployment and many Ukrainians who know in English only one phrase "London is the capital of Great Britain" will travel to Europe.

marcinL said:

And about 10 billion euros yearly of structural funds and CAP payments.

Click to expand...

Less then 5% of Ukraine's current annual GDP, unless my calculations are off or I found the wrong GDP figure. The benefits will be somewhat mitigated by things like waste caused by corruption or the emigration of several million people. Would it really be that helpful?

Well, in a thread where we're talking about Ukraine reaching its full potential, the negative consequences need not apply as much...

Zaius said:

Less then 5% of Ukraine's current annual GDP, unless my calculations are off or I found the wrong GDP figure. The benefits will be somewhat mitigated by things like waste caused by corruption or the emigration of several million people. Would it really be that helpful?

Well, in a thread where we're talking about Ukraine reaching its full potential, the negative consequences need not apply as much...

Click to expand...

Uhm, I sort of assumed that EU Ukraine is the 1991 POD scenario, that Ukraine would have to go the same process that other EU candidate countries, and goes the reform way since the early nineties, so the corruption etc. would have to be seriously cut before accession.

What am I doing said:

Ah, more money to settle in the pockets of corrupt officials without reaching its destination. How nice.
Also, increased competition and sanitary or ecological standards of EU may lead to the fact that in the first two years many Ukrainian manufacturers will close (especially in the light and food industries). Opening of the EU market will lead to price increase of what is inside Ukraine cheaper than abroad as export will be much more profitable than selling at home. And while prices are increasing, the average salary will remain the same. Decline in production will lead to growth of unemployment and many Ukrainians who know in English only one phrase "London is the capital of Great Britain" will travel to Europe.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is exactly what happened in new EU countries and what our own prophets of doom predicted... Oh, wait.

I think there would have been more active support for Ukraine in the West had they not allied with the Third Reich and partaken in some of the worst atrocities of the Holocaust.

Best solution that I've ever been able to come up with is that as France had Poland as an ally to help keep an eye on Germany and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union that the British decide to support the Ukrainians. The three main problems with that though is that unlike France they don't share a border with and have the perceived very real need to keep Germany down, that at the time the Soviets weren't seen as a pressing threat either - at least not enough to offset the potential political cost of directly acting against him, and that for some reason the Prime Minister David Lloyd-George seems to have been rather unsupportive of the Ukrainians as a whole.

If you could find some way to swing Lloyd-George around, either a rich expatriate Ukrainian or influential British person that supports the Ukrainians gets his ear, then you could perhaps go from there. The UK had shed-loads of surplus military equipment and materiel just laying around after the hostilities had ended, perhaps they sell them at very steep discount or just a nominal sum to the newly proclaimed free Ukrainian government? They also ran a number of military missions to Russia as part of the Allied intervention so they might be able to send some military advisors. One of the major complicating factors though is going to be Poland and their wanting to annex eastern Galicia and the Drohobych oilfields. Ideally France and Britain work out a compromise between themselves where they agree to support Poland and Ukraine respectively and threaten to cut off support if they go to war with each other. If the Ukrainians could keep the oilfields and the land border with Czechoslovakia then that puts them in a better position since IIRC they were trading oil for arms supplies with them. Even then keeping territory east of the Dnieper river and in the far north on the western side is still going to be bloody tough.

PhilippeO said:

Breshnev never give Crimea and Novorossiya to Ukraine.

Click to expand...

I thought that Novorossiya was declared a part of the Ukrainian socialist state back in the 20s and it was just the Crimea that Khrushchev transferred later in 1954? Or was I mistaken?

Central Powers win, Ukraine is established as a new country like Finland, Georgia etc. It is stabilised by the German army, and by the 1930s is running itself, free of German influence and able to develop

Best Regards
Grey Wolf