Well, at least it is much closer...
Mark Adomanis published a post where he points out the folly of comparing Russia to countries of sub-Saharan Africa. He uses economic data to demonstrate why such comparisons are off the mark.
Nevertheless, comparing the level of development of East European countries to sub-Saharan Africa is certainly not an unworthy exercise. It is not very intellectual to be honest, but entertaining, especially if you give it a good spin. Take for instance Botswana, with GDP per capita of $15,675 (World Bank -2013), and population of 2,155,784 (CIA -2014), if she wasn't a remote country south of the equator, it would be a hot candidate for membership in the EU. I mean Bulgaria is already a member with GDP per capita of $15,941 (World Bank -2013), and population of 7,364,570 (census -2011).
So is the Ukraine Nigeria? Not quite yet I must say. At present, GDP per capita of Ukraine is at $8,788 (World Bank -2013); Nigeria's is $5,862 (World Bank -2013). That is Ukraine's GDP per capita, is greater than Nigeria's by $2,926. For comparison, Russia's GDP per capita is $24,120 (World Bank -2013). Quite clearly, Russia is in a different league than the Ukraine and Nigeria.
The nominal GDP of Nigeria is at $522,638 which is far more than that of Ukraine which is at $177,431. This clearly has to do with Nigeria's large population, more than four times that of Ukraine, and even bigger than that of Russia. Perhaps the comparison of the Ukraine to Nigeria is not the best. With GDP per capita of $9,685 (World Bank -2013), Namibia appears to be a far more suitable country to compare to the Ukraine.
To those wishing to compare other East European countries to sub-Saharan Africa, I also suggest comparing Moldova to Ghana, and Georgia to Swaziland.