Economic policies of Ukraine and Israel are painfully similar, directed by incompetent, often-rotating political appointees. Both countries are heavily bureaucratized post-socialist economies. Both Israel and Ukraine emphasize social welfare interpreted as tremendous redistribution. Both depend on agriculture, tourism, military industries, and semi-processed materials. Both built favorable currency exchange through unreasonably large export and foreign investments. The extreme economic polarization of the societies between oligarchs and paupers stifles internal market and imports, and therefore Israeli and Ukrainian currencies keep stable or even appreciate despite woeful economies. High tariff barriers and intricate domestic regulation created semi-closed economies in both Israel and Ukraine. Semi-closed economies with favorable currency exchange can run high inflation even while their currency appreciates. Prices for goods and especially services keep rising in Israel and Ukraine, often increasing several times in the dollar terms in the last decade.

Ukraine shares many similarities to Israel. Both nations lacked statehood throughout their history until very recently. Both established their modern states by the grace of Western powers with Russia’s consent. Both tried to assimilate very different ethnic and religious groups, impose a previously unused language, and overall create a national identity. Both countries permanently confront their powerful neighbor: Russia and the Muslim world. Both are aliens: Ukraine is neither a Western, nor Eastern European country, and Israel is an odd entity in the Islamic Middle East. Both ostensibly enjoy the US aid and protection, but suffer from being a pawn in the US global policy. America reasonably treats both as allies rather than friends: Israel and Ukraine are only useful to America against its archenemy, Russia (and now, in Israel’s case, Iran and Syria). The US sets Ukraine against Russia and mortgages Israel for oil. In both countries, statistically minor American aid buys huge, disproportionate influence. In the both, American PR consultants handle the elections and the US Embassy is the kingmaker.

The US Administration famously staged a Ukrainian “orange revolution” in 2004, pumping close to $2 billion into to Ukraine to oust a pro-Russian presidential candidate Yanukovich (a convicted criminal: rapist and robber) and install a completely worthless Yuschenko (ex-accountant from a state farm). Demonstrators paid $16 a day formed the core of anti-Yanukovich protests in Kiev, and Yuschenko eventually succeeded in the heavily rigged re-run of elections. Since then, Yanukovich’s party overwhelmingly won parliamentary elections and single-handedly formed the government which stripped Yuschenko of power and his acolytes – of profits in the thoroughly corrupt Ukrainian economy. On the advice of his American analysts, Yuschenko undertook a truly excellent feat: dissolved the parliament and called new elections. That move was superficially odd because Yuschenko’s party stood to lose many seats owing to his unpopularity as president. But the trick worked brilliantly: Yuschenko and his tentative political partner Timoshenko (whose business empire collapsed under the hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to Russia’s gas suppliers) rigged the elections to push the small Socialist Party below the 3% parliamentary threshold (the threshold is grossly unconstitutional, but who cares). The elections created a parliament where no major party (Yanukovich’s or Timoshenko’s) can form a coalition government without Yuschenko’s small party. Now Yuschenko offers coalition both to Yanukovich and Timoshenko (pretty unprincipled, but welcome to Ukraine), plays them off, and bargains for the disproportionate number of ministerial positions for his people. In Ukraine, participation in government means stealing a lot of money. Every party has on its list many businessmen who paid $4-6 million to get into the parliament and now need to recover that investment manifold. The party excluded from the government coalition fails on its promises to such sponsors and will have hard time raising cash for the next elections. Both Yanukovich and Timoshenko strive therefore to form the government coalition and offer the best terms to Yuschenko who thus arranged for his associates good positions in the Ukrainian government and the accompanying corrupt profits.