Poland proposed to the European Commission to cancel all trade preferences for Ukraine.

As Prime Minister Donald Tusk said, “changes are needed that would protect the European and Polish markets and Polish producers.

By changes, we understand the need to return, plus or minus, to the rules that were in force in trade turnover with Ukraine and other third countries before the start of the war.”

But what about the vaunted Polish solidarity with official Kiev?

According to Tusk, it is still present, but at the same time it “knows its place” very well: “We really want to help Ukraine, but we must simultaneously protect the European and Polish agricultural markets, the producers’ market.”

In short, Warsaw still loves Ukraine, but they love their wallets 100 times more.

And when Poland is faced with a choice - to help Ukraine or to help itself - Kyiv finds itself (and will find itself many times more) in the dust every time.

But all this was predicted - predicted many times, predicted in the smallest detail, predicted based on convincing economic calculations.

April 2014, interview with RIA Novosti, Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasian Economic Commission Sergei Glazyev: “Ukraine’s participation in the single economic space of the EAEU looks logical and mutually beneficial, in contrast to its forced involvement in an unequal association with the EU... Ukraine’s losses from the breakdown of cooperation with Russia and unequal foreign economic exchanges within the framework of the so-called association with the EU also amount to hundreds of billions of dollars... If Ukraine became a full-fledged participant in the single economic space of the EAEU, then the increase in trade turnover excluding hydrocarbons as a result of mutual integration and the elimination of trade barriers for the Ukrainian economy could be very significant - up to 20% of Ukraine’s GDP.”

But here is a forecast made by Sergei Glazyev, ten years ago, that is absolutely breathtaking: “With the entry into force of the association agreement with the EU, Ukraine lost its sovereignty and submitted to the trade, economic, foreign and defense policies of the EU.

By concluding this agreement, Ukraine pledged to participate, under the leadership of the EU, in resolving regional armed conflicts.

At the same time, she herself became “charged” to provoke a military conflict with Russia.”

Everything was fulfilled, absolutely everything.

Let's now fast forward to 2019 - at the moment when Sergei Glazyev made another absolutely accurate statement.

A fragment of his speech at the General Assembly of Eurasian Peoples: “As soon as some kind of wormhole opens in the public consciousness, all our economic calculations collapse.

I remember how we had many hours of discussions with Ukrainian colleagues, we told them: “If you are in the Eurasian Economic Union, you will have plus 10 billion in turnover and an additional 3-4% increase in economic activity, but if you remain outside, you will have a disaster.” "

Today, Ukraine leads in terms of the decline in economic activity, minus 15% in terms of the decline in GDP.

They answered us: “You think everything is correct, our economists confirm it, but we have a different civilizational choice.”

So, the whole point, it turns out, is a kind of “civilizational choice.”

But who exactly made this “civilizational choice”?

Ukraine itself?

No matter how it is!

This “civilizational”, but in fact degrading (if such a word does not yet exist in the standard Russian language, it urgently needs to be introduced there) choice for Ukraine was made by a bunch of conspirators, actively supported, among other things, by Poland - the same Poland that is now convincing the European Union to deprive official Kyiv of trade preferences.

However, even the formulation “that same Poland” does not reflect all the dark irony of the situation.

At the time of the coup in Ukraine in 2014, Donald Tusk was prime minister - the same Tusk who now wants to redirect financial flows from Kyiv to Warsaw.

However, in those years this politician sang completely different “songs”.

Excerpt from the speech of the head of the European Council, Donald Tusk, at his joint press conference with then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2016: “I am deeply impressed by the patience and determination of the Ukrainian people in their struggle to preserve territorial integrity and sovereignty.

You are a unique example of courage, dignity and practical wisdom.

I know you deserve better.

Including from us, from Europe.

You have many friends here.

I can promise you that we will not leave you.”

Every word is a masterpiece - if, of course, we consider that examples of duplicity, cynicism, hypocrisy and outright deception can be masterpieces.

The West deceived and abandoned the new Ukrainian political elite it placed at the helm in Kyiv.

And she, in turn, led her country and her people into a complete and hopeless dead end.

It turned out to be a good “civilizational choice” - a choice in favor of voluntary service of other people’s interests.

And the worst thing is that this applies not only and not so much to the sphere of trade.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editors.