In politics you can never talk about any outcome; it can not leave off on December 31 and re-start on January 1st. Those processes, which began earlier, will go on in 2016. If we talk about the stability of the Ukrainian state, it is no longer sustainable and no longer a state, but keeps on being a state only to the extent that it is recognized by international players.For Brussels and Paris, and Berlin, it is unprofitable to preserve Ukrainian statehood, but to admit its dissolution/destruction is an even more losing option.
Once we admit its destruction, the question immediately arises, what to do next. Necessarily, create something new to replace it, but that would need a clear understanding of how to create, what to create, and what orientation the new formation would have. But the world’s major players have completely different views on the subject.
If the US, the EU and the IMF have not found 3 billion to pay for Russian debts, they simply won’t find the tens and hundreds of billions over 5-10 years for a new project.
At the same time, everyone understands that the regime is not something that is sustainable – it isn’t alive anymore, the local elections in Ukraine have shown that the regime can not compete even with regional elites: In all regions the elections returned local and regional elites. Therefore Biden, when he came to Ukraine, said that there was no longer a need to hold elections, let everything remain as it is.
His words relate to the fact that the politicians of the US, who have more education and experience than their Ukrainian counterparts, are well aware that any subsequent elections will lead to the disintegration of Ukraine, international community notwithstanding. This process can slow down, but it cannot be ignored, and though it may be possible to to maintain the integrity of the state with intravenous injections, it is no longer possible to stop the process of decay and reverse it.