Six scenarios for the future of Ukraine. What Vanga predicted for Ukraine

Despite all the achievements of science and progress in general, there are people who believe in the influence of stars on the fate of humanity and individual states. In times of trial and beyond, they try to lift the veil of mystery and therefore turn to those who understand the influence of stars the most - clairvoyants. We offer a forecast for the future of Ukraine from the strongest psychics in the world.

Now the people of Ukraine are in the most difficult conditions of transformation of society, so they, more than ever, need to know what will happen next. We hope that we will at least help you understand this issue a little. It is clear that each soothsayer sees his own picture of the future, so it is in vain to think that all predictions will be similar to each other. But, perhaps, this is the value of different points of view, that each person can choose exactly what he lacks or is closer.

What Vanga predicted for Ukraine

If we talk about the forecasts of this soothsayer, it is worth noting that she never mentioned Ukraine separately. Speaking about the future, she, first of all, meant humanity or a separate part of it, in this case, Eastern Europe. It should be noted that all her forecasts were allegorical and symbolic in nature. The woman was illiterate and could hardly operate with modern concepts. Nevertheless, from its forecasts one can discern the general trend in the development of a particular region. Speaking about the future, she more than once mentioned that the Slavic peoples would go through unprecedented trials. It may happen that brother will go against brother and a lot of blood will be shed. Analyzing these words, we can assume that she meant exactly what is happening in Ukraine now.

Indeed, one part of Ukrainian society decided to dictate its terms to another part of the country. It is clear that this did not lead to anything good - a military confrontation occurred, as a result of which about ten thousand people have already died. At the same time, Vanga noted that just during this period Sagittarius will appear, who will be able to eliminate the existing contradiction and end the war. It is now difficult to say what and whom exactly the psychic had in mind. But this is not so important, the main thing for all of us is that the military conflict will finally end and the long-awaited peace will come. Many researchers of Vanga’s legacy are confident that the soothsayer spoke about the 2018 elections in Russia, as a result of which the person who will change Russia and its attitude towards its former territories, namely Ukraine, will win.

Although there are people who interpret these words of Vanga in their own way. They believe that, on the contrary, a new person will appear in Ukraine, supported by the people, who will radically change the situation and better times will come for Donbass.

How Pavel Globa and Tamara Globa see this situation

As the astrologer noted, he saw the crisis in Ukraine eight years ago. The difficult situation in this country could lead to an armed conflict on the border with Russia. This forecast has now been confirmed. A revolution actually took place on the territory of Ukraine, as a result of which political forces came to power that opposed good neighborly relations with Russia. At some point, such actions of the new government became unacceptable for Donbass and Crimea. They advocated secession from Ukraine. The population of these regions held a referendum on sovereignty. However, if Crimea managed to become part of Russia, then a real war began in the east of the country.

Predicting further events, Pavel Globa is confident that in the near future Ukraine will split into several autonomous entities. The east of this country will join the Russian Federation, and other parts will be part of Ukraine on the basis of autonomy. In a few years, when attempts to join the EU are unsuccessful, the rest of this country will completely change the vector of its development and again begin to be friends with Russia. A Union of Slavic states will be formed, which will begin to flourish in the post-Soviet space and become an example for other states. It should be noted that Pavel Globa did not always predict correctly. For example, just recently he said that Yulia Tymoshenko will become the future president of Ukraine. However, this never happened.

Former wife Tamara Globa completely agrees with her husband. The only thing she also noted was that Ukraine would break up into five sovereign states and that there would be a military confrontation between it and Russia. In addition, the soothsayer noted that the EU will collapse, and NATO will weaken so much that it will not pose a threat to Russia.

It should be noted that Tamara Globa was right when she predicted:

• the beginning of the Chechen war;
• World Cup 2018;
• fires near Moscow in 2010.

Therefore, decide for yourself whether to believe her at the moment or not.

What does Alexander Lytvyn predict for Ukraine?

This psychic also cannot say anything good for Donbass and Ukraine yet. He notes that the confrontation between these regions will continue for several years. The new authorities of Ukraine will redistribute property, and the people of this country will become one of the poorest in the world. For now, the country's leadership benefits from this situation in the country. Alexander Lytvyn is confident that the salvation of Ukraine lies in the unification of all Slavic states. However, in this country the moment has not yet come for the population to protest against the existing government. As soon as such a time comes, the citizens of Ukraine will choose a worthy leader who will lead this country along the path of positive development.

Forecast for Donbass and Ukraine from Molfarka Magdalena

The famous sorceress believes that Ukraine will remain a single state. The conflict in the east of the country will subside after the people force the ruling circles to conduct a dialogue with both representatives of Donbass and Russia. This will happen most quickly after the victory of a new political force in the country.

Mogdalena is confident that Crimea will also return to the fold of Ukraine, but this will not happen in 2018, but in fifteen years. By this period, there will be a change in political elites, both in Ukraine and in Russia. It may happen that the Crimeans themselves will ask to return to their “stepmother”.

The clairvoyant also believes that the events of 2014 could not be avoided, as it was destined by the stars. She believes that thanks to past events, the self-awareness of the masses has grown. Now nothing can stop the people. People are filled with patriotism and are ready to change anything and everything for the prosperity of their Motherland. All this will yield results in the coming years. Ukraine will be on a par with the leading countries of the world.

Speaking about the new leader of this country, the psychic emphasized that he will be a person who has unquestioned authority among the people. He will lead the country along a new path, similar to the Baltic one.

Prophecies from the ancient elders

As experts say, God himself speaks to us through the mouths of the elders, so it is interesting to know what these respected people think about Ukraine:

According to many ancient Athonite elders, Ukraine will soon rise again, for the spirit of Kievan Rus has been awakened. Having experienced enormous upheavals, the Ukrainian people will create a state that will be akin to China in its successes. The renewed country will take the former name Kievan Rus, with its capital in the city of Kyiv. Crimea will return to Ukraine, but as the land of the Tatars. This will happen before 2025.

As can be seen from the article, predictions from the strongest psychics differ from each other. Everyone can choose what they see fit.

In addition to continuing the current state of non-inclusion in significant international security structures, Ukraine has five alternative scenarios

The main question about the future of Ukraine, to which there is still no clear answer, today concerns not only and not so much its internal affairs, economic transformation and social stability - topics that are often heard in the media and expert discussions. Ultimately, the decisive challenge facing Kiev in the next few years remains the issue of protecting Ukrainian national security from Russian hybrid warfare against Ukraine. First of all, this concerns the containment of possible further military attacks by Moscow deep into the Ukrainian state, such as aerial bombing, artillery shelling, missile strikes or the advance of ground forces beyond the borders of today's occupied territories. The latter could, for example, happen if the Kremlin decides to create a connection between Russia and Crimea along the Sea of ​​Azov - especially if the Russian construction of the Kerch Bridge fails.

In this regard, it makes sense to outline the following six possible options for the future international positioning of Ukraine. These scenarios will require from Kyiv, the West and Moscow - for example, after Putin's departure - different conceptual approaches, mutual signals and joint or antagonistic actions. They can lead to a variety of consequences not only for Ukraine, but also for the whole of Europe - if not for all of humanity (in view of the connection between the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the international regime on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons outlined below). As will be illustrated, the relative odds, risks and opportunities for any given scenario to occur vary dramatically. Nevertheless, it makes sense to discuss all six scenarios in approximately equal measure, since they are all actively discussed in the expert community and international diplomacy, as well as sometimes in the media. It also makes sense to compare the current relative probability of their implementation and openly talk about utopianism, desirability, riskiness, attractiveness, gloom, etc. their future implementation.

Moreover, in the coming years one cannot exclude either new shocks or transformations of the international security system, or sharp changes in the internal situation of various national states and interstate organizations involved in the “Ukrainian conflict.” As a result of such mutations of the conditions for the six scenarios outlined, the relative probability of their implementation may decrease or increase compared to the current situation. Some of the scenarios presented here may seem like mere fictions against the backdrop of today's international situation. However, their preliminary discussion today makes a certain sense in case sharp turns occur in the coming years, for example, within Ukraine, Russia, the United States and/or the European Union. Recent years have taught us that even the most seemingly incredible new developments cannot be completely ruled out.

The scenario of maintaining the “gray zone” seems most likely today

This kind of political cataclysm, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, progressive leaps can provide new “windows of opportunity” for Ukraine and its friends. If such a window does suddenly open, Kyiv, Brussels, Washington and other players will probably need to act quickly and decisively so as not to miss the historical moment. It is for this case, i.e. in order to be prepared for the most dramatic turn of events, only hypothetical options for the Ukrainian future are discussed here. They may remain as fantastic as they seem today - or, on the contrary, they may become quite possible if the world changes significantly.

First scenario: Ukraine (together with Georgia and Moldova) remains in the current geopolitical “gray zone” of Europe and receives only informal support for its security from the West

A simple extrapolation of the current situation of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia without a significant change in their international status is, by far, the most likely scenario in the coming years. New developments within this scenario are possible, such as various bilateral partnerships, projects and agreements. But in the end, such individual initiatives are likely to leave the level of institutional inclusion of all three countries, i.e. the lack of their organizational inclusion in the European security system, similar to today's. As a result, on the one hand, it can be rightly argued that only a discussion of different future options within the framework of this first scenario of events is a truly realistic discussion, and that only attempts to improve this particular scenario make political sense for Ukraine.

On the other hand, the obvious drawback of this Ukrainian, Georgian and Moldavian future is that it will essentially be a continuation of the situation that has developed since 1991. This scenario will continue to reproduce the set of circumstances that led to the 2014 disaster. Partial Western assistance to Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia in the form of financial support, various cooperation schemes and the supply of some weapons, at worst, will one day be seen as a distraction from the task of more creative and substantive solutions to the fundamental problem of the international position of these three countries.

Scrupulous work on the gradual improvement of the “gray zone” scenario, in view of its high probability for the next years, is, of course, necessary - and, in view of the uncertainty of alternatives to it, even a priority. However, an excessive or even exclusive focus on just this goal may lead both Ukraine and the West to forget the fact that this scenario will ultimately mean the continuation of a dangerous geopolitical “hole” in Europe. Until this fragile model of Eastern European international relations is replaced by some serious structure, it could lead to an even greater collapse than the one that occurred in 2014. The idea that Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia should and can become strong enough on their own to resist Russia is honorable and attractive. But she is ultimately naive, if not thoughtless. That these countries on their own can cope with another full-scale Russian military invasion, including air and missile attacks - and this is the nightmare that needs to be discussed if the basic national security of the three countries is to be seriously discussed - is just a sweet dream.

Second scenario: As part of a big deal between Russia and the West, Ukraine will receive some security guarantees, but may lose part of its territory and/or sovereignty.

While the first option is by far the most likely, the second, sometimes called “Finlandization,” has become the most popular over the past three years among many politicians, diplomats, observers in Western Europe and some Russian analysts. The idea of ​​a big deal between Moscow and the West is often mentioned both in the media and in expert discussions. In principle, Ukraine should be the most interested country in a stable, comprehensive and fair peace with Russia. However, a sustainable deal with Moscow seems unlikely without fundamental changes to Russia's current political regime, or at least its foreign policy priorities. Today's Kremlin is unlikely to truly recognize Ukraine's sovereignty or agree to a real solution to the Crimea issue. Perhaps we can assume a possible future withdrawal of Russia from the Ukrainian Donbass in exchange for the lifting of most Western sanctions.

It is likely that Moscow will also demand additional concessions from the West for this progress, such as, for example, the official exclusion of the possibility of future accession of Ukraine to the EU and NATO. The Kremlin also most likely will not give up Crimea and will not stop supporting its puppet regimes in Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Thus, such an asymmetrical deal, which ignores the interests of Kyiv in particular, would be a de facto repudiation by the US and UK of their promises in the famous 1994 Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances to Ukraine. (The title of this document is often incorrectly translated in Ukraine as “Memorandum of [alleged] guarantees security”, although the English version of the text speaks of “security assurances” and not “security guarantees”.) Thus, such a possible agreement would further undermine the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, which had already cracked in 2014, as discussed below in details.

Moreover, such a deal would repeat various previous failed attempts to reach an understanding between the West and the Kremlin about the post-Soviet space through collective bargaining and the signing of multilateral documents. In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum with the US, UK and Ukraine, the Kremlin - in exchange for the full transfer of Ukraine's nuclear arsenal to Russia - assured the world of its respect for the territorial integrity, state borders and political sovereignty of Ukraine. In the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Document, Russia promised to withdraw its small military unit from Transnistria. In the Russian-Georgian peace treaty of 2008, reached through the mediation of the EU, the so-called. “Sarkozy plan”, the Russian leadership agreed to withdraw its troops from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In the Geneva Declaration, the Minsk Protocol and the Minsk Memorandum of 2014, and in the Minsk Agreement of 2015, Moscow agreed to the de-occupation of Donbass.

None of the Russian promises in these multilateral agreements (as well as in a whole series of bilateral agreements between Russia and Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia) were fulfilled, although Moscow, to one degree or another, took part in initiating the signing and developing the texts of these documents. Concluding another similar agreement with Moscow could have a similarly disappointing outcome. At worst, he could tempt the West to sign up for a permanent violation of Ukraine's political sovereignty. Such a result, against the backdrop of events and agreements regarding the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal of the 1990s, would further undermine the logic of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, which has been blatantly violated by Moscow since 2014.

Scenario Three: Following its promise at the 2008 Bucharest summit, NATO provides Ukraine and Georgia with Membership Action Plans (MAPs) and eventually admits these countries to membership.

While a grand bargain between Russia and the West is the preferred option for resolving the conflict over Ukraine among many Western and Russian observers, within Ukraine and Georgia the most popular option for resolving their security concerns is for them to join NATO as soon as possible. (Moldova declared itself a permanent non-aligned state in 1994.) The relative majority of not only politicians and intellectuals of the two countries, but also Ukrainian and Georgian societies today consistently support joining NATO. In 2008, Ukraine and Georgia officially applied for NATO membership. Although these statements did not result in the granting of MAP applicants, the alliance promised in the final declaration of its Bucharest summit that Ukraine and Georgia would "become members" of the alliance - although it did not specify how or when this would happen.

The fundamental problem with this scenario is that NATO is not a supranational organization. The decision to admit new members is not made by NATO bureaucrats or military personnel, among whom there are many friends of Ukraine and Georgia. Instead, all member countries of the alliance must unanimously agree to expansion within the North Atlantic Council. Before a hypothetical vote in the North Atlantic Council, Georgia and Ukraine's application to join NATO would likely have found significant support among the political elites of the alliance's Eastern European and North American members. However, since each country has the right of veto, the chances of a unanimous positive vote would still be slim today. Most likely, there will always be at least several Western European countries that will veto such an expansion of NATO - until the territorial disputes between Kyiv and Tbilisi with Moscow are resolved.

Paradoxically, Ukraine and Georgia, apparently, will only be able to become NATO members when they no longer need it, i.e. if and when they resolve their conflicts with Russia. However, many Ukrainian and Georgian politicians, experts and diplomats today invest much of their time and energy in promoting the idea of ​​their countries joining NATO as quickly as possible. They are not only promoting this vague scenario in their countries, but also putting pressure on their colleagues in the West to somehow solve the membership problem, despite the fact that the likelihood of unified support for this step by all 29 members of the alliance in the coming years is close to zero . Although the motivation of pro-NATO Georgian and Ukrainian politicians and activists is understandable, their constant attempts to achieve something in this regard are not only useless at the moment. They are partly counterproductive because they distract Kyiv, Tbilisi and their Western partners from finding more promising ways to improve the structural security of Georgia and Ukraine for a period of time until NATO membership eventually becomes truly possible.

Fourth scenario: Accession to the EU as a tool for strengthening the security of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.

In contrast to the insurmountable political obstacles to NATO's further eastern expansion as long as Ukraine and Georgia's conflict with Russia continues, the future EU accession of the three associated Eastern Partnership countries is a much less politicized issue. The EU is not a defense alliance, which makes its enlargement less risky for member states and less threatening to Russians, most of whom until recently had a significant level of sympathy for the EU. Against this background, the chances, challenges and trajectories of joining the EU, on the one hand, and NATO, on the other, are different.

True, Kyiv, Tbilisi and Chisinau have no official prospects for EU membership. However, at the moment when the three countries fully implement their already signed Association Agreements with the EU and thus “Europeanize” their national legislations and public administrations, there will be many supporters in the Eastern Europe for the accession of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova to the Union. Central, as in Western Europe. Therefore, contrary to popular belief, the future accession of these three countries to the EU is not so unlikely. Such a step would also not be trivial in terms of ensuring the security of the three countries.

The association agreements concluded by these three post-Soviet republics in 2014 are exceptionally large and comprehensive agreements that will gradually strengthen their ties with the EU in the coming years. In fact, the implementation of these super-treaties in itself will make Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia participants in the European economic and legal space. Once the Agreements are fully implemented and in effect in many areas of public life in the three countries, the final step towards full EU membership will be relatively easy.

Against this backdrop, it is likely that once most chapters of the Association Agreements have been implemented, the three countries will receive formal candidate membership status from Brussels. It is also likely that subsequent accession negotiations will be shorter than in the case of earlier accessions to the EU, since many key issues will already have been resolved during the implementation of the existing huge Association Agreements. Although these agreements are not formally concluded to prepare the three Eastern Partnership countries for EU membership, in fact they do just that.

The EU, however, is not a military alliance and, therefore, does not provide the same unambiguous security guarantees as NATO. However, the members of the Union are institutionally connected so strongly and multilaterally that they cannot help but be close geopolitical allies. Thus, the accession of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova to the EU will significantly improve their security position and will be geopolitically less complex than further NATO expansion.

Some politicians, diplomats and experts in these three countries understand the potential importance of EU membership in resolving the security problem of Kyiv, Tbilisi and Chisinau and are therefore actively working on it. However, the particular depth and breadth of these three Association Agreements means that their implementation will take many years. This means that - although politically joining the EU is easier than joining NATO - Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova will not soon be able to apply for EU membership. The question remains of what to do until their likely future entry into the Union.

Fifth scenario: Obtaining the status of the so-called. The main non-NATO ally of the United States and/or the conclusion of a security agreement based on the Budapest Memorandum.

After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine inherited the world's third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, which significantly exceeded the total number of atomic warheads then in the possession of China, Great Britain and France. Of course, Kyiv in the early nineties did not have the opportunity to use most of these weapons. However, this huge arsenal, as well as Ukraine’s significant production capacity and engineering and technological experience, would allow Kyiv to create small, but functional and quite threatening nuclear forces.

However, Kyiv decided to give up all its nuclear weapons, equipment and materials in order to join the global Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in the mid-1990s as a non-nuclear weapons state. Already suspecting a Russian irredentist threat at that time, the Ukrainian government, however, insisted that Ukraine, for abandoning its nuclear arsenal, should receive security guarantees from the so-called. NPT depositary countries, i.e. from Washington, London and Moscow, which signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994.

Of course, this memorandum is not a full-fledged international treaty. He provided Ukraine not with “guarantees,” as is often stated in the Ukrainian media, but with “assurances” about security. However, since the Budapest document is closely related to the NPT, Moscow in 2014 violated not only the territorial integrity of Ukraine. An indirect casualty of the Russian annexation of Crimea and intervention in the Donbass was also international confidence in the effectiveness of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Against this background, Ukraine should in the future try to convince Washington and London to confirm their 1994 assurances and do this not only and not so much out of solidarity with Ukraine, but for the sake of preserving the future strength of the global non-proliferation regime.

The standard security format that the United States applies to selected partners around the world is the so-called. Non-NATO Principal Ally status, which includes a range of special security cooperation opportunities and could be accompanied by a military assistance pact between Washington and its ally. In December 2014, the US Congress was seriously considering granting this status to Ukraine, but at the last moment this provision was excluded from the relevant bill. In March 2017, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a resolution in which it directly asks Washington to declare Ukraine its Principal ally outside NATO. In the future, perhaps, Kyiv should even strive for a trilateral agreement between Ukraine, the United States and Great Britain based on the promises of Washington and London to Kyiv in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.

The obvious reason why such a treaty and military cooperation does not yet exist is that the US and UK would then risk being drawn into the Ukraine-Russia conflict. On the other hand, such a move would raise the stakes for Russia in its hybrid war against Ukraine, and thus could help deter future attacks by Moscow. Moreover, providing Ukraine with stronger US and UK security guarantees than those provided under the Budapest Memorandum would strengthen general confidence in international law in general, and the NPT in particular. Against this background, Washington and London will one day be able to decide that they should still take such a risk and make some kind of “upgrade” of the Budapest deal of 1994 - not only and not so much for the sake of the safety of Ukrainians, but in the interests of the further functioning of the non-proliferation regime. In this case, Ukraine will be able to significantly strengthen its international involvement and move away from its current position in the European “gray zone” of security.

Paradoxically, such a development would also be in the fundamental strategic interests of the Russian state - a fact that, of course, cynical “Kremlin political science” would resolutely deny. Russia's perception as a global power and its international stature are more closely tied to the relative formidability and exclusivity of its nuclear arsenal than, for example, is the case with the United States, China, France and the United Kingdom. The international weight of these four countries, however, is also based on their status as official nuclear powers under the NPT. But their status and reputation are associated not only with their nuclear weapons, but also with other factors, such as the significant economic power, high academic potential and various technological innovations of these more or less dynamic nations.

Maintaining Russia's global status and weight as a country whose achievements in non-military spheres are more modest than those of other nuclear powers is therefore especially closely related to future compliance with the NPT. If different countries of the world lose their confidence in the effectiveness of the NPT and, accordingly, begin to acquire nuclear weapons themselves, this will reduce, first of all, the relative international weight of Russia. It will be more difficult for Moscow than other official nuclear powers to compensate for the gradual decline in the uniqueness of its nuclear weapons holdings with other levers of influence. The relative status losses from a possible future increase in the number of countries with nuclear weapons will be greater for Russia than for any other country in the world. Therefore, Moscow should be - in view of Russia's specific international geopolitical position - the most ardent guarantor of the NPT. But, of course, the Kremlin's latest operations in Ukraine run counter to, in a variety of ways, goals that could be described as Russia's core national interests - and not just in terms of its relative international weight.

Scenario six: Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, as well as a number of post-communist NATO member states, will create a coalition embodying the old Polish idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe “Intermarium” (Intermarium).

The geopolitical situation of Kyiv, Chisinau and Tbilisi - on an abstract level - is similar to the situation of the new states of Central-Eastern Europe that emerged after the First World War, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. Like these states during the interwar period, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova now find themselves in a geopolitical hole, with their sovereignty threatened by a revisionist power. Russia has already managed to turn all three of these countries into “failed states” by actively inciting and purposefully supporting separatist movements in them. Without Moscow's help, six separatist units would not exist on the territory of these countries. Indirectly, Russia is also involved in separatism in Azerbaijan, where Moscow helps Armenia, which in turn supports the separatists of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova are currently already included in the so-called. Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, known by the acronym GUAM. The unification of four countries in this coalition is vaguely reminiscent of the interwar Eastern European project called “Intermarium” (i.e. “lands between the seas”). After the collapse of the empires, Polish and other politicians from the former colonies of various empires in Europe developed the idea of ​​uniting their nations between the Baltic, Black and Adriatic seas. The main goal of Intermarium and similar projects was to enhance the relative security of these inherently weak states by creating an alliance that would make the buffer zone between a potential revisionist Germany and Russia/USSR more secure. But this idea was never implemented - and could not stop the outbreak of World War II.

GUAM, like another similar organization created in 2005, the so-called. A community of democratic choice has become a reality. However, these coalitions are too weak in their composition and statutes to resist military intervention and other so-called. Russia's "active actions" in the current "gray zone" between NATO, on the one hand, and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, on the other. Ukraine's closest western neighbors - Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania - and other eastern NATO member countries should be interested in the stability and security of the Ukrainian state in particular. The possible collapse of the Ukrainian state as a result of another Russian attack would affect them in a variety of ways.

But despite this commonality of interests among the nations of Central and Eastern Europe, there has not yet been any significant action to create an appropriate comprehensive security structure for the countries of this region. And this is against the backdrop of the fact that there is already a certain model for such an agreement between a NATO member and a non-NATO member in the region. In 2010, Azerbaijan managed to sign a Strategic Partnership Agreement with Turkey, which includes an article on Ankara’s possible military assistance to Baku. Thus, not only the United States in its various alliances outside NATO, but also Turkey, with its agreement with Azerbaijan, has already crossed the “red line” of giving ratified security guarantees to NATO members outside the alliance.

However, for Poland, Romania and Ukraine's other Eastern European neighbors, the idea of ​​their participation in an anti-Kremlin coalition outside NATO appears to be uninteresting. Although the Intermarium idea has been occasionally mentioned by Polish politicians, including current Polish President Andrzej Duda, over the past 25 years, Warsaw has yet to take any concrete steps to implement it. Today, Warsaw seems more interested in building anti-German Eastern European coalitions within the EU than in solving security problems on Poland's eastern border.

The usefulness of the EU or NATO in the event of the most apocalyptic, but quite possible scenario for the Ukrainian state, i.e. its collapse would be limited for Ukraine's western neighbors. It is unclear, for example, how much Brussels could help Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania with the influx of several million Ukrainian refugees or with the explosion of Europe’s largest nuclear power plant in the Zaporozhye region. Does Warsaw rely on NATO troops to start shooting at Ukrainian refugees after the maximum number of refugees that Poland is willing to accept has been exhausted, i.e., for example, after the arrival of the third million immigrants from Ukraine within a few weeks? Does Bucharest hope that the EU will introduce a strict visa regime for Zaporozhye radioactive particles when they begin to cross the Schengen zone en masse through the Romanian-Ukrainian border?

The likelihood of a complete collapse of the Ukrainian state and its apocalyptic consequences is, of course, low. However, the stakes for eastern NATO members in Ukraine's stability are enormous, and NATO's ability to help in this regard (due to the aforementioned timidity of Western Europeans) is limited. Against this background, the relative passivity of, in particular, Warsaw, Bucharest, Budapest and Bratislava in overcoming the Eastern European “gray zone” is surprising. This inaction may be due to the fact that many Central Eastern politicians, diplomats and even some experts have an “astronomical” view of their region today.

In the not fully realized “astronomical” imagination of Europe among post-communist elites, the continent is divided into the good “planet” of the EU and NATO, and the bad “planet” of all other countries. Being on the right "planet", in this post-geographical view, solves all the major security problems. The only important thing is that in no case should you enter into any connection with another “planet”, not be involved in its problems and thereby be dragged from the “correct European” to the “wrong post-Soviet” zone. In the brave new world of Central Eastern political science, the bad planet is so far from the good that its problems are inconsequential to the happy inhabitants of the EU/NATO planet.

There are, of course, other reasons why the periodically emerging idea of ​​​​creating Intermarium has not yet been implemented. Thus, the recent nationalist turn in Poland’s domestic and foreign policy has led to new tensions in both Polish-EU and Polish-Ukrainian relations. The unsuccessful official post-Maidan policy of historical memory in Kyiv - especially with regard to the interpretation of the meaning and perpetuation of OUN-UPA leaders - played along with this Polish turn. In particular, this concerns the activities of the new leadership of the government Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance (UINR), consisting of historians who do not publish in serious academic journals. The incompetent initiatives of the UINP and similar institutions have greatly facilitated the utilization of new Polish-Ukrainian tensions by the Russian propaganda machine.

Conclusions

None of these six scenarios are encouraging. The first, about maintaining the “gray zone,” seems most likely today. But, perhaps, taking into account known past experience, it is ultimately a dead end. It remains unclear whether, even stronger than today, cooperation, adaptation and consolidation within this scenario could replace or compensate for the formal and sustainable institutional integration of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova into a more or less significant international coalition to the extent that the security of these three countries will increase significantly.

The remaining five scenarios, on the contrary, provide some international legal mechanisms for seriously ensuring security in today's “gray zone”. They would fundamentally change the entire geopolitics of Eastern Europe by signing new major treaties. But these scenarios, which are beneficial in different dimensions to Ukraine, Georgia and, in part, Moldova, today are unrealistic, if not fantastic. However, these five scenarios, to one degree or another, may become possible in the future if significant changes occur in the domestic or foreign policies of certain countries and organizations involved in the Eastern European region.

If you find an error in the text, highlight it with the mouse and press Ctrl + Enter

Personal point of view.

Ukraine IMHO is unviable: Russia has refused to sponsor the fascist madhouse, and the West will also inevitably refuse to do so. At an international conference (Russia, the EU, possibly the USA) negotiations will be held that will simply consolidate the awareness of this fact by all members of the UN Security Council, and the UN Security Council will stamp the decisions made, just as the “Minsk Agreements” were stamped.

So, what awaits Ukraine?

The West does not have the resources, motivation or desire to carry out the denazification of Ukraine. Russia also does not want to do this (at least directly with its own hands). But for now the West is paying the bills.

We have a fork:

• If the West continues to finance Ukraine, Ukraine will CONTINUE to degrade, and the West will CONTINUE to suffer image and financial damage.
• In case of cessation of funding for Ukraine by the West, Ukraine will begin another military adventure against the Lao PDR, Poland, Hungary or Slovakia.

One way or another, as a result of military defeat and/or social collapse, the ability of the Ukrainian-Nazi regime to resist intervention will be catastrophically reduced. Ukraine as part of the West is not viable. There are months, maximum 1-2 years left until complete social collapse. At the same time, the West also cannot take Ukraine “on balance”, since it does not have extra money and cannot cope with the corruption and nationalism there, taking into account the current liberal approaches.

When the crests finally understand that there is no hope for the West, they will quickly change their colors. The social catastrophe in Ukraine and the successful Maidan of pro-Russian forces can lead the West to such a political and ideological collapse that it will be easier for them to agree to prevent this from happening. Therefore, IMHO they will negotiate. Negotiations will begin either forcedly (after the fact after the start of Ukraine’s war with the EU), or as the West realizes its loss in Ukraine.

An important condition: Russia DOES NOT WANT and WILL NOT include ALL of Ukraine into Russia. The maximum that is reasonable from the point of view of our authorities, IMHO, is the LPR and DPR, which are fairly thinned out from excess population, self-sufficient in energy, motivated and have proven their loyalty to Russia. They will most likely become part of Russia completely or within the current borders, with Ukraine completely renouncing its claims to these territories.

Russia will not want to finance the restoration of social infrastructure and production throughout Ukraine to the extent that this should be done according to domestic Russian standards. The maximum is self-government and relatively preferential conditions for local economic activity under tight Russian ideological, military and political control. IN SHORT, PROTECTORATE.

In the course of resolving the conflict, Russia expects the following bonuses:

• Ukraine and the West will be forced to renounce their claims to Crimea. The UN will record the legality of his transfer to Russia.
• Ukraine will be finally blamed for the crash of the Malaysian Boeing. The leaders who gave the corresponding order will be found or “appointed” and demonstrably convicted of murder. That's the minimum.
• Guarantees of supply to Transnistria will be provided. Perhaps, in order to fulfill these guarantees, Odessa will be separated into a separate de facto independent region with direct control from Russia.
• Possible: recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as members of the UN Security Council, rejection of the term “Russian aggression against Georgia”, a separate decision of the Security Council on this topic.

As a result, the West STOPS incurring image and financial expenses on Ukraine - this is its ONLY acquisition, but this is not enough: the Nazi viper at the borders is constantly undermining the EU and its ideological foundations

The deal will be next IMHO.

Level 1 - basic, unconditional

• Russia gets everything it asks for
• The West is throwing off the Ukrainian problem

Level 2 - conditions.

• Russia establishes a protectorate in Ukraine to carry out reforms.
• Access to Transnistria on terms that suit us.
• Russia’s “burden” is the annexation of the LDPR, financing the restoration of which to the domestic Russian level, in the opinion of the West, will significantly limit our capabilities. This will make it possible to “sell” this decision to conservatives within the West.
• Also, Russia will be forced for some time to subsidize Ukraine with prices for raw materials and access to its market, since there is simply no other way to mitigate the social consequences of the cessation of Western funding.

The protectorate is established for the purposes of:

• restoration of the rights and freedoms of the Russian majority and ethnic minorities (Hungarians, Czechs)
• carrying out denazification
• restoring order on the streets
• accustoming Ukrainians to comply with laws and disciplined payment of required taxes
• eliminating imbalances in the economy
• stopping the plunder of the country (amber, forest).
• federalization
• legalization of Russian as the first state language

In order to legalize the establishment of a protectorate, Ukraine will be simultaneously occupied by EU and Russian troops. Perhaps the occupation will be slow and last for a couple of weeks in order to morally break the Ukrainians and force a revolution or capitulation of power in Kyiv

I consider the following to be mandatory measures of the protectorate:

• Ukraine's armed forces are being reduced by 98-100%
• purges in the media, criminal prosecution of all those who “drowned” for ultra-nationalism,
• imprisonment of members of Azov, Right Sector, etc.
• mass landings of officials and deputies responsible for the war (“ATO”) and the downing of an airplane.
• elimination of individual purely nationalist elements from Ukrainian, for example SUGS
• introduction of criminal sentences for Ukrainian nationalist symbols and shouts (Right Sector, etc.)
• strict police control over the above, or (preferably) control of people's squads.
• areas that refuse these conditions will be subjected to massive bombing by the West, much like the Donbass by crests.
• local and federal authorities in Ukraine will be COMPLETELY replaced by people who have not been soiled by the past chaos - preferably from Ukrainians or those born in the Ukrainian SSR.
• purges of the police, complete replacement of customs officers and border guards.
• massive confiscations of property from volunteers and oligarchs who supported the war, from the leadership of the police, army and customs.
• elections are cancelled, legislation is formed by the Russian-appointed administration.
• Denazification is carried out strictly according to new laws, by the citizens of Ukraine themselves.
• regions that do not massively accept the new order are completely blocked: a total ban on the export and import of EVERYTHING is introduced, and entry into their territory is prohibited. Departure is allowed
• The President of Russia has the right to cancel any decisions of any government bodies and install his managers in any positions.
• All this is prescribed in Russia’s mandate, signed by the UN Security Council.

Perhaps the term “Ukraine” itself will be prohibited in relation to the times after the collapse of the USSR, except in the phrase “nationalist Ukraine”.

All armed actions to establish external control in Ukraine will begin only after a decision of the UN Security Council and will not constitute an aggressive war. After completing the occupation, EU troops surrender the occupied territory to Russian troops.

The lands of Little Russia will change their borders,

Among the hills and black soil there will be holes and abysses,

The struggle of an alien foreign force for power and dominance in the world will upset the balance,

People with weapons, thirsty for war, will sink to the bottom of the gorge,

But people who want peace will remain on the hilltops.

Homes and lands will be abandoned, for the fear of death will point the way to the land of the East,

36 will separate from 490 and reduce the lands of the state, violating the integrity,

The Russian prince will receive these lands as a gift for his birthday,

A country torn apart will change the world, change itself and begin to prosper...

The future of Ukraine: forecasts, predictions
and just a little about Putin...

Of course, it is simply impossible to remain indifferent to the events that are taking place on the territory of Ukraine. Despite the fact that there was a real political revolution. Revolution and change of power. There are more questions than answers as the future is uncertain. The country, torn apart, plunged into chaos. And peace is actually not needed by any of those on whom it directly depends. What awaits Ukraine in the future, what is the forecast? What fate awaits Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, Donbass? What will happen to the ex-president of Ukraine? What should people do, what should they hope for? And many, many more questions...

…

..

1. Huge bat

began to cover the sky of Crimea (I knew in a dream that it was the sky of Crimea). But a huge white dove drove her away! (the threat of war has passed, I assume this was the case).

2. Planes are flying in the sky,

everyone says that these are EU planes. I was perplexed because they had American flags on them. There were a lot of “onlookers”, a thousand or a million people, many people began to fall to their knees, stretching out their hands to the sky with a joyful sparkle of hope in their eyes... well, they were literally praying for these planes. And then bombs fell from these planes, in an instant I saw corpses, wounded people, and I clearly saw the wounds and wondered how it was and why? (then, many years ago) why are there so many simple lacerations on a person’s body from these bombs, and they don’t kill? straightaway. I see how many people groaned in pain, despair, etc. and bit into the ground with their teeth.

on a fragment like from films, when the Germans drove crowds of people. Only the men with swastika armbands spoke Russian. Those men who were persecuted thought that they were being sent for training. In my dream I knew for sure that they were going to war. Only I saw the swastika. Those who were being driven did not see her.

4. Beautiful wheat field

I know that Ukraine. And suddenly the burnt bodies of the Gentiles began to fall from the sky onto the field. This is how it went in my dream, Gentiles. The picture changes, children are sitting in some closed room, several dozen children. I know that they were supposed to fly on some plane, but Obama ordered their detention. And out of the corner of my eye I see him, nervously running... back and forth!

5. Staircase bridge high into the sky,

and people climb along it, and so do my daughter and I. So we crossed over with her. There were sensations that went into another dimension. I asked the Higher Powers what this dream wanted to tell me? A dream within a dream. I wake up in a dream and go to my window, and outside the window is Moscow! Ministry of Foreign Affairs building. Moreover, the picture is so real, as if it were in reality, that when I woke up, I was lost, I didn’t immediately understand where I was, what was wrong with me, it was as if my body was not mine. I have consciousness, but I can’t move my body.

6. Next time I’ll ask again,

Will I go to Moscow? How is it that my apartment stands still, and outside the window is Moscow? I had this dream in the summer of 2013. Some kind of gate, Yanukovych and Putin are standing on the gate with their flags. They are tall, about the size of a 5-story building. I approached Yanukovych... and he told me... something like “either I’m not me, or maybe I’m no longer me” and then clearly “Your president is now...”, and points to Putin.

7. Yanukovych sits,

holding some kind of thing (like the Jester in Tarot cards), and on one side I noticed the coat of arms of Crimea. He moved it back and forth, and then finally bent it completely. I had a dream when I asked what would happen to Crimea? When there was Maidan in Kyiv. I will say that I understood this dream only when they started talking about the secession of Crimea, about the referendum. But at first I didn’t understand. Well, that’s it, then maybe I’ll remember something else. In the next topic, what should I write about? Who is more interested in what in life?

Greetings to all!
I practice lucid dreaming, and I have also repeatedly addressed the topic of events in Ukraine. I am from Zaporozhye, I live in St. Petersburg.
Based on the information that I receive from time to time in OSs, the picture is as follows:

The US and Russia agreed to divide Ukraine,

The multi-pass was developed jointly. Unlike Putin, Obama is only a puppet in the hands of the powers that be. Russia regains some areas of the southeast, the rest of the territory becomes completely dependent on America. Maidan was created artificially to split Ukraine and begin a division. War - to clear the territory of ALL Ukraine from the hottest heads and ardent patriots. Hence the constant calls throughout the country. The West does not need a strong male population, it needs an obedient herd. The West deliberately brought the current leadership of Ukraine to power in order not only to split Ukraine, but also to bring it to absolute poverty.

By mid-2016, the country's population

will lead to the conclusion that Ukraine will not survive on its own, and a split will begin. The people of the southeast will willingly support unity with Russia and at the beginning of 2017 the Odessa region, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, Kharkov and Kherson regions will finally separate from Ukraine. Nikolaevskaya and Kirovogradskaya are in question, it is not yet possible to obtain accurate information on them.

Ukraine will be completely weakened and will no longer be able to resist the secession of the southeast. Residents of the center and west will already have a passive attitude towards everything, and will simply dream of peace and stability, of a normal life. There will be no one to fight.

The current government will gradually merge and disperse throughout Europe. The remaining regions will be led by US proteges, although Ukrainians, who fully support the interests of the White House.

Life in these territories will improve gradually and painfully.

Paradoxically, the new government will begin to persecute ardent nationalists and imprison them mercilessly. American-European values ​​do not allow nationalism in any of its manifestations. The dominance of foreign enterprises and owners will appear. People will be able to work and earn quite well, but economically, the remnants of Ukraine will be completely and ruthlessly subordinated to the will of the West.
Agriculture will flourish.

The formation of Novorossiya will not be easy either. The standard of living will be lower than the Russian average. It will rise gradually. And this will provide food for speculation and discontent. The current Russian opposition will widely expand its activities in the territory of the former Ukraine. However, nothing serious will be achieved. Russian investments in the restoration of industry on the territory of Novorossiya will allow the regions to be revived, and by 2020 the standard of living in Novorossiya will rise to the Russian average, and in some areas will exceed it.
Putin is preparing his successors. Two at once. But for now he has no plans to leave the presidency.

The remnants of Ukraine and Novorossiya will never be reconciled.

Already being different states, they will continue to blame each other for the split. Novorossians will consider the split of Ukraine to be a logical ending, and Ukrainians will curse the current government and accuse it of colluding with Russia.
By the way, there is constantly information that Yatsenyuk will not survive his career for long. He will be diagnosed with cancer.
Tymoshenko faces another political rise, then again troubles with the law, a protracted illness and a retreat from public activity. But she will use her connections to the last, and will remain an influential person in politics.

That's all for now. Over time I will try to get more information; it is not always possible to tune in enough and get into the right period of time. When trying to see the future of Poroshenko or find out in detail about Putin’s successors, I am constantly thrown out of the OS... I feel that Poroshenko is not a long-liver, but this is just a feeling, I can’t claim

report June 15, 2014 - “closed”

The following is a transcript of only part of the report: in the near future there will be an active military deployment of the Russian armed forces, mainly aircraft and sea vessels. Increasing military presence in the Black Sea.

THERE WILL BE WAR.
The period begins after the presidential elections in Ukraine.

I see a house. Private, surrounded by a very high fence. Everything along the fence was dug in, the tiles were blown up, the earth was removed and dug up, this is how they used to make a ditch around cities or settlements. There is not a single gap in the fence. It can be seen in some places that fragments were broken into, but the owner repaired everything and strengthened it even more. Lives with family. Doesn't allow anyone to leave. He does everything outside the house himself. Ethnic Ukrainian. He opened the gate, looked around and allowed entry. He feels very confident in his territory. In fact, he does not feel fear, only if necessary he shows fear. He has a plan for further actions and, in my case, a goal. He offers products. Sells them to me. In the end, it turns out that not only the products of production are leaving him, but also their basis. He resold all the plants with roots. When I left, I looked at the garden - the land was empty. Selling everything to earn money, he was left without food himself.

(report 03/31/2014)
– according to the affirmation “The Future of Ukraine”

Wall along the road. On a slight hill. The area of ​​perception is rather a deep astral plane. All dirty tones, colors - dirty gray and dirty beige. Information comes at the level of pure perception. Putin is walking along the road towards the right. He has two images at the same time. The first one, the one everyone knows, he leads the one everyone “thinks they know.” Leads on a leash. The second one is on all fours, but not face down, but face up. At the same time, he manages to move forward, always looking at the first one. In addition, the second one has psychological problems and is dependent. The first one has an anomaly this time too. The energy blockage is almost complete, the influence is from outside. A leg is missing.

(report February 27, 2014)

The area of ​​perception is the casual plane. The information arrived in one block, without sequences. The request is the true reason for the events in Ukraine. In the natural space of the Earth, Ukraine (territorially) occupies a special place of power, is ethnically manifested in the mentality of nationalities, and there is a karmic polar duality. The integrity of essences manifests itself after transformations that follow the opposition of opposites. There was an overabundance of negativity, mainly formed by the decline in moral human qualities. This is how purification occurs.

(report January 11, 2014)

The area of ​​perception is the mental plane. The time is approximately spring, but not late (the beginning of events). Railway track. Viewable from a great distance. There is only one railway track (a scenario for the development of events without options, predetermined), along the entire route there are enclosing metal structures. The train is moving in a south-west direction. Passenger train. It goes at very high speed. The entire train is accompanied by military personnel. As a rule, everyone stands on the steps of the cars (at the entrance and exit). All accompanying are officers. Ahead on the route is a huge ravine, it is filled with icy, clear water.

The train doesn't stop

moves down into the ravine and goes completely under water. Having reached the bottom point, it cannot overcome it, it stops and, by inertia, reverses. At this moment, the train cars begin to collide with each other and injure people. The train never crossed the ravine, rolled far back and stopped. There are a lot of wounded, most of the officers with damaged insignia and fractures, mainly of the spine. The bodies are thrown into a heap, where, in addition to the bodies, there are many fragments of metal gratings - fences that originally made up the fence. Now it is destroyed. The train didn't go any further.

Everyone asks:

“What do astrologers, clairvoyants and psychics say about the future of Ukraine, what is the future of Ukraine?” But, believe me, no one knows more than the people who are “inside” the event. The main thing is to be able to obtain such information. After all, the easiest way to “see” the essence of what is happening is through the people who are involved in the situation. And if you yourself have a direct or indirect connection with events, then look into the future yourself!

Affirmation for sleep

Publications on the site

*User Mila:

I want to contribute to the predictions for Ukraine.

Not dreams. Meditation: I asked two questions 10 days before the referendum in Crimea. The first question was about Crimea. There was a vision: in the sky there was an image of the Mother of God as in the “Pokrov” icon, only in her hands she had a large Russian flag, with which she covered Crimea on the map.
The second question was about Ukraine, about the South-East, where by that time a protest movement was already brewing, then peaceful rallies. There was no May 2 in Odessa, there were no bombings. Same day (March 5). Vision. A hero in white simple clothes rises from the ground. Dark brown small snakes or large worms crawl at him from all sides.

They crawl along it, rising higher and higher.

The hero falls. St. George the Victorious appears on a white horse, hits the ground with his spear and the earth splits. And immediately new heroes in white begin to rise from the ground. There are more and more of them, they grow in dozens. And the next shot - the snakes quickly crawl away, gather in the distance of the country on one piece of land, stand on their tails in height, with their backs facing each other and trembling. I assessed that there would be a war, the fascists would rush to suppress the knights in white in the South-East. BUT by the will of God, Ukraine will be divided, and fascism will be defeated throughout the entire territory of Ukraine in the future, the brown ones will be driven into Galicia, where they came from.

Crossroads of worlds. One mystical story...

This article can be posted on other resources while maintaining all links without closing them, with the obligatory indication of the site and direct hyperlink.