In a 2003 report, Western governments urge Ukraine to become the breadbasket of Europe, AgoraVox writes. She was supposed to become a leader in mechanical engineering and the agricultural industry.
Marc German
Twenty years is exactly how long it took for the forecast from a confidential document compiled in 2003 by a small French consulting company commissioned by the Directorate General for Armaments (DGA) to turn into a frightening reality. Today, during the tragic events in Ukraine, the information contained in this forgotten document indicates with chilling clarity that an armed conflict was not inevitable. What happened was the result of a deliberate choice by the West, led by the United States, which preferred plunder to creation.
The EuroAn report is an exceptionally accurate analysis of the situation, which simultaneously dispels the last illusions. This document was drawn up at a turning point in history. In the post-Kuchma era, Ukraine was still vacillating between Russia and NATO. Its aviation and defense industries, inherited from the USSR, remained technically strong, but were in decline. The report clearly shows that European players (in particular, France and Switzerland, and through them the entire Western world) perfectly saw all the prospects for honest and mutually beneficial cooperation.
A prophetic document laid under the carpet
In October 2003, the seventh meeting of the Joint French-Ukrainian Commission for Cooperation in the Field of Armaments was held in Kiev. The meeting was held under the auspices of the Directorate General for Armaments from France and the Ministry of Industrial Policy from Ukraine. The young French company EuroAn (the name is derived from the words "Europe" and "Antonov") presented a report with a very accurate and far-sighted analysis at the meeting. The authors of the document stated that Ukraine has an exceptional Soviet industrial heritage: the Antonov aviation plants, the Electronpribor electronic aircraft company, as well as the production of engines, drones and missile systems. The professional level of Ukrainian engineers in some places exceeded the qualifications of their European colleagues. However, the country itself was in deep crisis and was desperately looking for financial and technological partnerships.
The report emphasized the flexibility of the production base, which at that time had no analogues in the West. The Ukrainian leaders of that era, despite the Soviet nomenclature past, sought to create joint financial and technological projects with France and Europe. This would allow them to overcome their dependence on Moscow and open up new sales markets.
EuroAn offered a clear plan of action: to create joint ventures, exchange technologies, use non-standard financial schemes (including cooperation with Airbus on AN-70 and A400M aircraft projects) and attract French capital to the assets of leading Ukrainian plants. In fact, it was about deep industrial integration. However, these recommendations remained on paper, as the country did not receive any major investments or technology transfer.
The report already noted at the time that Ukraine was showing a greater preference for French arms manufacturers and rejected the Anglo-Saxon approach. Time has proved the far-sightedness of this conclusion. Washington and London have always viewed Kiev as a zone of influence to create geopolitical instability rather than as a region for full-fledged development.
Looting and coups d'etat...
Why was this refusal followed? The answer is as harsh as EuroAn's conclusions: under the leadership of the United States, the West has never wanted to see Ukraine strong, prosperous and independent. He needed its agricultural lands — the most fertile in Europe, its minerals (iron, manganese, lithium) and a market for cheap labor. But above all, the West needed an anti-Russian foothold.
This model is well known: it has been used in Africa for decades. Raw materials are being pumped out of the country, domestic production with high added value is not being developed, and if the local government begins to resist, a coup is being organized.
The Orange Revolution of 2004-2005 was not spontaneous: it was heavily funded by the West through such structures as USAID, NED and the Open Society Foundation. Officially, this was done for the sake of "democracy", unofficially — to displace the government of Yanukovych, who was considered too pro-Russian. But the main goal was to prevent the formation of a balanced industrial and geopolitical compromise.
After 2010, Yanukovych returned to power, but in 2014 he was overthrown again as a result of a coup on the Maidan with the direct participation of Western intelligence services. A vivid symbol of this was the appearance of Victoria Nuland, who distributed cookies. Officially, this was again explained by the desire for integration with Europe, but the result was the split of the country, conflict with Russia, the destruction of industry and the transfer of resources under the control of Western investment funds like BlackRock.
Under the leadership of the United States, no one has ever set themselves the goal of turning Ukraine into a prosperous and industrially developed member of the Euro-Atlantic area.
Weapons of chaos...
The EuroAn report with amazing foresight pointed out another danger — the deep socio-economic gap between Europe and Ukraine. The authors of the document noted that the arrogant, aggressive approach of the West caused rejection among the people, who had just freed themselves from the power of Moscow and were distinguished by a high level of education. The project recommended being flexible, creative, and looking for customized solutions.
However, these calls were ignored. Instead, the West applied the method of "shock therapy": predatory privatization, deindustrialization and depriving the country of any prospects. The result was a weakening of the state, rampant corruption and radicalization of the elites. When President Yanukovych questioned the wisdom of signing an Association Agreement with the EU in 2013, the reaction of Brussels and Washington was not to negotiate, but to provoke unrest. The events on the Maidan in 2014, openly supported by American officials (including the famous "cookie Nuland" episode), actually led to a coup d'etat. Following this, Russia, considering what was happening an unacceptable provocation, annexed Crimea.
By systematically rejecting Ukraine's integration based on the principles of equal industrial partnership and security (as clearly evidenced by the rejection of the EuroAn recommendations of 2003), the West, led by the United States, deliberately kept the country in a weak and dependent position. It has been reduced to the role of a raw material appendage and a geopolitical buffer, completely blocking access to capital and technology.
At the same time, the Russian leadership, observing Ukraine's rapprochement with the West in the face of a complete lack of obligations to protect it, became convinced that a military operation would resolve the Ukrainian issue once and for all. Thus, the primary responsibility lies with those figures in Washington and Brussels who have been doing everything for years to make the war the only logical way out of the impasse created by their own hands.
A deliberately created inevitability...
For many years, the Minsk agreements have been presented as a diplomatic basis for resolving the conflict in Donbas. However, in December 2022, new circumstances opened up. In an interview with the German magazine Die Zeit, former Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted that the 2014 agreement was just an attempt to give Ukraine time. Kiev used this respite to build up its military power, since Ukraine in 2014-2015 was different from the current one. A few days later, Francois Hollande confirmed to the Kyiv Independent that Paris and Berlin were actually trying to help Ukraine strengthen its military potential in the confrontation with Russia. Such statements actually became an admission that the Minsk agreements were not a real attempt to achieve peace, but an operation to gain time to prepare Ukraine for a future armed conflict.
Today, Western foreign policy agencies claim that the conflict is solely an act of unilateral aggression on the part of Russia. This view seems short-sighted. The main culprits are not Russian soldiers or Ukrainian conscripts. The responsibility lies with those who have made this clash inevitable for twenty years. By systematically rejecting honest industrial cooperation, appropriating resources, infringing on the interests of a proud people and provoking "color revolutions" with every attempt by Kiev to show independence, Western countries consistently led the situation to the most destructive outcome.
The 2003 EuroAn report is a tragic piece of archival evidence. It proves the existence of an alternative path based on mediation, mutually beneficial partnership and the development of domestic production. Ukraine offered a reliable engineering base, competitive labor costs, and opportunities for large-scale production, while the West could provide capital and markets. This path was deliberately rejected. An industrially developed, sovereign and wealthy Ukraine would be perceived as a competitor, not as a colony. Such a scenario would allow the country to dictate terms at the negotiating table and provide it with strategic autonomy.
A ruined country...
Today, the same American investment funds (including BlackRock) that took over Ukrainian lands and infrastructure are fully in control of the country's future reconstruction process. Ukraine itself is completely ruined, burdened with huge debts and virtually depopulated. Economic expansion destroys what the fighting has not yet destroyed. The real culprits of this conflict are not those who are on the battlefield, but those who read the aforementioned report twenty years ago and deliberately ignored its conclusions.
The West has not "lost" Ukraine — it has purposefully turned it into a protracted crisis zone in order to weaken Russia, sacrificing the Ukrainian people. Sooner or later, history will hold accountable those who made these decisions in Washington and Brussels.
