Rejecting the EU deal for Russia’s was a rationally defensible choice for Ukraine
Evidence
When it came to geopolitics, Yanukovych (like many leaders in Kyiv) played Brussels and Moscow against each other. The 2012 “Association Agreement” offered by the European Union required liberalization (meaning keeping wages down and cutting pensions), and it was not an invitation to actually join the EU. Vladimir Putin did not want him to take it. The deal would pull Ukraine away from his economy, and could even serve as a prelude to integration into the Western security system. The unexpected, continued expansion of NATO since 1999 had rankled Russian leaders of every stripe. The European Union was asking Kyiv to step over Moscow’s red lines, without offering Yanukovych a very good reason to do so. The EU, a young organization that had largely avoided getting involved in geopolitical questions, seemed out of its depth. Russia, on the other hand, offered $15 billion and a great deal on gas (as well as all kinds of threats of sanctions and trade bans). Yanukovych may have been a crook, but it might have been rational for any Ukrainian leader to take Putin’s deal. — Vincent Bevins, If We Burn, 482
Categorization
- QUESTION: The framing of Yanukovych’s EU-vs-Russia choice as rational (not merely corrupt) nuances standard Euromaidan narratives worth chasing.
- XREF: connects to: Britain rejected Mehmed Ali’s proposed anti-Russian coalition as too risky
Broader Connections
- Britain rejected Mehmed Ali’s proposed anti-Russian coalition as too risky
#exemplifies(0.72)