By Syrializm Analytics
The flamboyant statements of Petro Poroshenko leave him less and less chance to retain the position of President of Ukraine.
However, Washington has not yet said its last word.
In Ukraine, the pre-election race is nearing its end – on March 31, the people of this country should elect their president who will supposedly lead the country for the next five years.
As candidates for the election were admitted more than 40 applicants, according to surveys conducted by local and international research centers – Blue Dawn Monitoring, Kiev International Institute of Sociology, Ukrainian Politics Foundation, and many other.
Today only 5 candidates have a more or less realistic chance to lead Ukraine:
The first candidate is the Ukrainian politician, screenwriter, actor and director of Ukrainian film studio Kvartal 95 Vladimir Zelensky.
The Second candidate is the infamous former Prime Minister of Ukraine, the so called the “Iron woman of Ukraine” Yulia Tymoshenko, who is the leader of the “All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland” political party.
The Third candidate is, the flamboyant boy of the west himself, the current president of the country, Petro Poroshenko.
The Fourth candidate is Anatoliy Hrytsenko, an independent member of the current Ukrainian parliament, former Minister of Defense, member of the “Our Ukraine” political party and the leader of the Civil Position party.
And last but not least, the fifth candidate, which is Yuriy Boyko, the former Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine, and a former Minister of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine.
According to sociologists, in the interval from the summer of 2018 to the present, poll results show a clear tendency to reduce the level of confidence of the Ukrainian electorate to Petro Poroshenko.
According to the latest data, he ranks third in the popularity rating of presidential candidates, and his position continues to deteriorate.
It is easy to explain the reasons for such a leader’s unpopularity among his fellow countrymen.
During the reign of Ukraine’s, Petro Poroshenko who didn’t fulfill any of his election promises, driving the once thriving country into a political and economic deadlock.
Against the background of a significant increase in the welfare of the oligarch himself, the quality of life of ordinary Ukrainians has become noticeably lower.
Consumer prices for food and essential goods increased by more than 90%, tariffs for housing and utilities services rose by an average of 5-10 times, gas prices increased 11 Times.
If we take into account that the average incomes of Ukrainians decreased by 15-20%, and the pension reached a practical minimum of $ 65, one can understand the negative attitude of voters.
“Petro Poroshenko should resign and apologize to the Ukrainian people for bringing the country to poverty and leave it a heaven for Mafia works”, “In less than five years the country has become the most impoverished in Europe, it is a shame on the president and the government”, Mykola Azarov, the former head of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, said in an interview with one of the national TV channels.
Poroshenko no longer recalls his promise to end the anti-terrorist operation in the Donbass, and his recent statement about the impossibility of a cease-fire in the conflict zone makes it possible to doubt the sincerity of the declared intentions of the Ukrainian leader.
“If Russia stops shooting, then there will be peace, if Ukraine stops firing, Ukraine will not”, Poroshenko said unequivocally at a security conference in February 15-17 in Munich.
European and Russian political analysts have already responded to this statement, in whose opinion, the voiced opinion of the head of state demonstrates the clear departure of the official Kiev from the Minsk agreements on Donbas.
The Ukrainian leader decided to compensate for the lack of success in international politics and the socio-economic sphere with achievements in the spiritual sphere.
Trying to attract believers to his political camp, Poroshenko provoked a global church split.
The recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine by the Patriarchate of Constantinople split the Christian believers of the country into two hostile camps – supporters of the PCU and the Russian Orthodox Church.
The people, who had previously demonstrated some kind of integrity even in matters of faith, actually did not have a platform for unity, except, perhaps, for many years now, the idea imposed on Ukrainians about the presence of an “external threat” from Russia.
At the end of January, at a US congressional hearing, the head of national intelligence, Dan Coates, noted that the election results in Ukraine are ambiguous and Poroshenko could well lose them.
“A wide circle of presidential candidates, a high level of distrust towards elites and the lack of a clear leader can allow opponents of President Petro Poroshenko, and at the same time less well-known candidates and novice politicians, to appeal to the undecided Ukrainian electorate”, the head of the intelligence agency said.
Political scientists who were not bound by “national interests” were more categorical in their conclusions: Poroshenko who devastated his country financially and spiritually would not be able to legally lead Ukraine a second time.
In the event that he still succeeds in using a powerful administrative resource and financial capabilities, to “win” or falsify the election results, his opponents promise to take the people to the streets.
The already unstable situation in Ukraine will be stirred up by the second “Maidan”, and can finally split the country into opposing territories.
The demonstrative message of the United States that in these circumstances Poroshenko should not count on the support of the White House, it is difficult to take at face value.
The absence of any other pro-American politician in the number of candidates (hardly Tymoshenko or Zelensky can be considered as such) simply leaves Washington with no other choice.
It is necessary to take into account the fact that the scenario of controlled (or not) instability in Ukraine fully corresponds to the interests of the United States on the European continent.
Russia will not be able to supply the Europeans with the necessary volumes of gas through the territory of a belligerent country and, therefore, will suffer serious losses.
And the hungry countries of Europe, whose industry is largely dependent on the incoming fuel, will become more compliant on the issue of the purchase of American shale gas, and when discussing the conditions of a strategic partnership with the United States.
Apparently, these alarming forecasts for Europeans are already beginning to come true.
Leader of the Ukrainian party “Opposition Platform – For Life” Viktor Medvedchuk accused the current Ukrainian authorities of trying to exchange the country’s gas transportation assets for US support during the presidential election.
“There is every reason to believe that Poroshenko and Groysman actively support this initiative of the United States, which may be an attempt by the current government to exchange the assets of Naftogaz and the Ukrainian gas transport system for support from the United States in the elections”, said Medvedchuk, posted February 18 on the official website of the party.
Naturally, such a situation is unlikely to suit the European Union, which is already not going through the best of times, however, as the United States has repeatedly demonstrated the fate of the “Old World” according to the United States wanted to be… after all the issue is in fact not worrying Washington that much… why, simply because they don’t care.
The only thing that is matter to Uncle Sam is to keep them under his wing, without the “Freedom” to decide what’s really best for them.