The reality of the situation is that Ukraine is hot potato best left to themselves. The EU is selling a hot bill of goods to the Ukraine. A financial deal which would inevitably destroy their economy and displace millions of their workers.
In 2012 Ukraine's exports to the EU were about €14.6 bn (bigger than exports to Russia), and Ukraine's trade with the EU was €37.7 bn which is almost as big as trade with the whole CIS bloc (incl. Russia) at €38.2 bn:
The Association Agreement means even more trade than the existing trade agreements with the EU (e.g. GSP, MFN). How the hell do you assert that even more exports and trade with the EU would "inevitably destroy their economy". That makes no sense at all.
Association Agreement gives Ukraine an access to the EU's over 500 million consumers and market with a combined economy of 12.9 trillion euros - while Russia's union has only 170 million consumers and a combined economy of 1.4 trillion euros. The EU already is one of Ukraine's biggest trading partners, and the AA would be a big long term benefit for Ukraine.
Besides, it's not as if Ukrainian workers aren't displaced also into Russia with about
3.5 million Ukrainian migrants in 2009. Which makes your worry about worker displacement appear very one-sided. Heck, Russia has even hinted using them as leverage and deporting them if Ukraine's leaders choose to make decisions that go against Putin's will.
No type of comprehensive deal was worked out in consideration of their current economy needs. They replace none of the services offered.
Could you elaborate on this? What do you mean by a "type of comprehensive deal"? And what does replacing "services offered" mean?
There's absolutely no plan to successfully integrate the Ukraine in the EU over the long term, and if I understand correctly you all just got out of a financial crisis. Inviting Ukraine to the EU is inviting massive amounts of debt and uneducated low wage workers. Something that the EU needs less of right now.
You seem to be conflating an Association Agreement with a Membership Agreement. As Ukraine has not applied for EU membership your point is irrelevant.
Man, did you ever once consider that maybe the Ukraine would be better off without the United States, Europe, or Russia? It's all or nothing for you, EU or die.
...
I don't see destroying Ukraine's economy as a good way to start off a relationship. It's almost as if the EU wants to push Ukraine into the arms of Russia.
No, it's almost as if you're living on a different planet. Who's been threatening to damage Ukraine's economy? Who's random embargoes of Ukrainian goods, breaking the WTO rules, has caused not only economic damage but also unemployment in Ukraine? Just for one example:
Ukraine Candy Maker to Fire Workers Amid Russian Ban.
And it just so happened that Russia lifted embargoes only after Ukraine accepted the high interest loan deal with unfavourable conditions:
Russia can call in Ukraine loan if situation warrants - Shuvalov. So for Russia it's stay as Russia's vasall or die, and now with the loan deal Russia has even more leverage to use: they can call off the loans and demand repayment
at any time if Ukraine's leaders choose to make decisions that go against Putin's will.
If the EU really wanted Ukraine, they would've made a fair trade deal that left the Russian agreements intact or replaced them with comparable/superior agreements.
An association agreement includes a free trade deal and an access to the EU market with over 500 million consumers and a combined economy of 12.9 trillion euros, and as a "fair trade deal" goes getting a free access to the market is as fair as it can get. Besides, a sovereign country can easily have trade deals and free trade agreements with multiple partners and the AA does not exclude trade with Russia. Heck, my country is EU
member and trades with Russia as does many other EU countries.