Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro once again won the election of the head of state. Won, despite the total economic devastation in the country, the lack of goods, products and just money. He won, despite the boycott of the opposition's elections and the suspension of her leading candidates for the presidency. At the same time, Maduro's main rival, Henri Falcon, whom many oppositionists consider a traitor for his consent to participate in a performance organized by the authorities, accuses Maduro of falsifying the results of the vote, writes journalist Vitaly Portnikov on EspresotTV.

Maduro's victory is the answer to all those fans of "true democracy" who tell us supporters of the Maidan 2013-2014 that we, through our participation in the popular protest, violated the procedure. That in fact it was only necessary to wait a little, wait for the next - well, or at the extreme, extraordinary - presidential elections and elect a new head of state. And then there would be no deaths on the Maidan, nor the annexation of the Crimea, nor the war in the Donbass. And there would be no economic problems either. And Yanukovych would not have been.

So, Yanukovych would have been. He would be re-elected - how Maduro was re-elected. The Maduro Party has long lost everything in Venezuela, it does not even have a majority in parliament. But Maduro ignores parliament. He can afford it - because he controls power structures, the judiciary and election commissions. Yanukovych had exactly the same control mechanisms. Supporters for dances in the squares in case of his victory would also be found - after all, we saw with our own eyes the Anti-Majdan. Yes, these supporters would be a minority - but who would have known about it?.

The authorities would have jeopardized both the turnout and the voting results without any problems. Voting, in which no real rival of the dictator would have been allowed to participate. However, some dummy competitor would also blame Yanukovych for falsification - and interviews with him would be shown both on Russian television and in Savik Shuster's studio (as you know, Shuster would also remain). So that we can see what kind of democracy we have - here, a man accuses the authorities of falsifications and he will not get anything for it.

The annexation of the Crimea and the war in the Donbass, of course, would not have been - why occupy any separate pieces of foreign land when you are in charge of the whole country? But there could be deaths - opposition politicians and journalists, critics of power, just people who would be dissatisfied with the criminal regime. A regime that would rule Ukraine for decades - like the regimes of Maduro, Putin or Lukashenka. And everything would have been Donbass. Only there would be no democracy - however, why it is needed by those who are sure that it is better to hryvnia by 8 than democracy.

So no hryvnia on 8 would not have been. There would be economic disruption associated with the total plundering of the country - in fact, in 2013 it was already beginning, the Maidan and the collapse of the state of Yanukovych only accelerated this inevitable collapse. Accelerated - but also created opportunities for reform and change. And so there would be no conditions. We would live on Putin's giving-and he does not have enough money on his own.

However, one difference in the economic situation from the current situation would have been. Those who dared to resent the hryvnia for 25 (or 45, who knows) would quickly knock out the teeth.

And those who stayed at the teeth, would learn to be silent or applaud - good, our society has a good Soviet school of opportunism and collaboration.

And now you and I did not read the news about Maduro with sympathy and amazement, but we would prepare for the next election of Yanukovych, discuss how Putin looked at our Donetsk "duce" at his inauguration and to whom Yanukovych will transfer power - Medvedchuk or his son Alexander. This would be all our news with you. But this would not be news of Ukraine. Because no Ukraine would actually exist.