
About Ukraine - blearyeyed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/01/30/9-questions-about-ukraine-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/
======
11001
Here is an ELI5 version of what's going on in Ukraine:

Ukraine doesn't have any money, it needs to borrow it. It can ask the west,
but the west gives back a list of conditions to be satisfied (human rights,
economical, etc) that are incredibly hard for the governmnet to achieve given
deeply rooted corruption on all levels.

There is another source for the money: Russia (which, despite some westerners'
beliefs, is a very rich country). In return Russia's demands are to make sure
that the deeply rooted corruption on all levels works in Russia's favour. That
is _much_ easier to achieve.

Hence the recent $15 billion loan from Putin, that officially appears to be
unconditional.

Another point I'd like to make is that many people in the east (I come from
one of the big industrial cities in the south-east), don't just dislike Europe
and like Russia. It's that their jobs literally depend on Russia, most of the
industrial exports go straight to Russia, that's why people there are
terrified of any sanctions.

~~~
marcosdumay
> Ukraine doesn't have any money, it needs to borrow it.

Most of the places where something like that's said, it's disingenious. Are
people there starving? (From the news, it does not look like so.) If they are
not, they have no such need to borrow.

Of course, even if they don't need it, it might actualy be a godd idea to
borrow some money. But looks like the people don't think it is.

~~~
IgorPartola
Do you suggest that if people are not starving but the country has no money to
maintain the infrastructure (which in turn is what allows businesses to grow,
and creates jobs) they should be made to give up their personal money before
any money is borrowed from elsewhere? That's a pretty socialistic approach.

------
cLeEOGPw
One thing that wasn't mentioned in the article was about the reasoning behind
Putin's customs union. Putin is very pro-Soviet Union. He wants to make
customs union to make it resemble Soviet Union with Russia as the leader
country and others (such as Belarus), former Soviet Union members as satellite
countries. He also sees it, as mentioned in the article, as a counterweight to
EU, which he views as a threat. So his personal interest in Ukraine goes
beyond "care for Russians living in Ukraine". He basically wants to rebuild
Soviet Union, and Ukraine is a key component.

~~~
shitgoose
Putin's longing for USSR is overrated. I don't believe he gives a rat's ass
about USSR.

Customs Union is a block on countries that have deeply integrated economies,
common language (unofficially it is Russian) and common background. CU is just
as natural and logical as, for example, European Coal and Steel Community
formed after 2nd World War. Whether CU will evolve into political union, like
EU is trying to do, is unknown. Probably not. So there is no reason to freak
out and fantasize about menace of USSR2.

~~~
cLeEOGPw
> Putin's longing for USSR is overrated. I don't believe he gives a rat's ass
> about USSR.

I believe he gives quite a rat's ass about USSR. Remember that Putin saw USSR
fall under his own eyes. He not only blames Gorbachev for the destruction for
USSR, but basically considers him a traitor for things like not approving
violence against occupied states during independence uprisings. Besides the
sentiments for USSR, he also is aware that his political power is going to end
in some, time, so he wants to be remembered for something big. And he believes
that creating something that resembles USSR is that thing. That's why he cares
so much about customs union and is willing to basically bribe other countries
to join it despite lacking money for Russia itself. That's what happened with
Armenia - he "bribed" the country by offering big loan and lower gas prices
before it joined EU economic treaty, like Georgia, Moldova did. That's why he
offered money for Ukraine in exchange not even for customs union, but just not
signing EU economic treaty, which was already prepared and ratified by
president of Ukraine.

~~~
shitgoose
Putin's main concern after he quits politics is his personal safety, not
rebuilding USSR. Nobody in Russia wants back into USSR, an attempt at
rebuilding would be futile and suicidal.

As for "bribing" the countries to join CU - that is the whole point of CU,
which implies deeper integration, lower trade barriers, lower prices for gas
etc. If you don't want to be "bribed", it is simple - don't take the money
(and don't blame corrupt politicians, as if there is any other kind). We may
question the motives - some countries are natural fit for CU, like Belarus or,
potentially, Ukraine. Some, like Armenia come cheap and are more for the show
to create an image of successful regional integration. EU does the same thing
- Greece is going to be the major headache for years to come, the role of
countries like Bulgaria and Romania in EU is entirely unclear (does EU "bribe"
them by transferring money to their budgets?). While having core European
countries in a union makes perfect sense.

I hope you realize that Ukraine is never going to be an EU member, which makes
the whole argument surreal.

~~~
cLeEOGPw
The thing is, from economic point of view, Putin makes mistake to pay so much
money just for them to participate in the union. And what Putin is known for
is careful, very calculated political moves, certainly not charity. So he
expects something more from it later.

Besides, saying that Ukraine will never be EU member just exposes your clear
bias. Everyone knows it won't join EU for a long time, but if they elect
people that work towards it (which is unlikely knowing how chaotic the
opposition is) it would be a matter of time till it joins EU.

~~~
shitgoose
He expects to build a regional structure based on economics rather then
politics in which Russia will play the main role. Portraying it as the second
coming of USSR is plain wrong. It is also wrong to assume that there are plans
to turn this union into political one - Russia doesn't need the headache of
managing Ukrainian, Kazakh or any other nation's internal affairs. To achieve
that Russia is willing to spend a few bln here and there to push them in the
direction of CU. Again, EU did the same thing with Eastern Europe by accepting
them on a super fast track.

I don't have bias, I am trying to see things as they are without cliches. EU
is not likely to survive in its current form. One of the main issues with EU
is that some countries made it there for political reasons, for which EU is
beginning to pay dearly and has no appetite for Ukraine whatsoever. Putin may
be making same mistake with say Armenia, but again he is just a bureaucrat
like his European colleagues.

~~~
cLeEOGPw
I still think Putin is not telling the whole story about his CU yet, and I
think EU is in quite good shape. Only some financial problems in southern
countries (Portugal, Spain and Greece) and migration problems in UK and maybe
to some extent Germany. So it will most likely not only survive, but thrive
further.

~~~
shitgoose
Well, if I am wrong - good for EU and all the best to them.

------
skylan_q
_Even if Putin can 't bring Ukraine in, he'd like to keep it out of the
European Union, which he sees as an extension of a century-old Western
conspiracy against Russia. _

It's no secret that U.S. foreign policy is guided by _The Grand Chessboard_

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard)

U.S. control over Ukraine would be a checkmate in controlling Europe and the
middle east.

I hate to use the old adage, but this crisis presents a real opportunity.
Russia and the EU could work together to sort this out instead of remaining
divided. I don't see why the US has a say in the destiny of a country that's
divided between Russia and the rest of Europe.

------
nmc
Are Americans so ignorant to justify the publication of such an article?

(OK, I must admit, I had never heard of Mykola Lysenko before.)

* * *

EDIT: it seems this post is getting misunderstood, because I tried (and
apparently failed) to shorten the following interrogation.

1\. _The Washington Post_ is an American newspaper.

2\. The article explains a situation by giving a basic history lesson, and
does not contain any new or exclusive information.

3\. The title of the article, and the four first questions, are clearly aimed
at people who ignore most about Ukraine, including its very existence.

So the target audience is: Americans who do not know anything about Ukraine.
My initial assumption would be that this is a small group. However, the
average weekday circulation of _The Washington Post_ is above 400,000.

Summing up, it looks like some editors at _The Washington Post_ believe that a
lot of Americans are ignorant of facts about Ukraine, possibly including the
very existence of a country called Ukraine. In my opinion, such a belief is
questionable, hence my original interrogation.

* * *

To go further, I believe that another article could have been written, with
all the interesting information from this one, and without the obvious in-
case-you-are-not-aware-of-Ukraine part.

I also believe that an equivalent event would not be published in an
equivalent newspaper in France, Spain, or The Netherlands. This is why I am
wondering whether that kind of articles is specific to American newspapers.

* * *

This all started with me having a question. Despite all the downvotes, I am
happy about all the answers that help me better understand American press.

~~~
hedgie13
> Are Americans so ignorant to justify the publication of such an article?

Yes. They will also uncritically read everything what is written there.

~~~
nmc
Hard to tell because of the written means, but I hope you are being ironic.

------
kushti
Why so much Ukraine on HN? Protests are happening almost everyday in some
european country. No Thailand protests covered here. Why the hysteria about
Ukraine here?

~~~
viach
From what i can see here - there is a lot of hackers among protesters. They do
they day work and go throwing rocks in the police afterwards.

~~~
IgorPartola
Case in point:
[https://github.com/fre5h/DoctrineEnumBundle/pull/12#issuecom...](https://github.com/fre5h/DoctrineEnumBundle/pull/12#issuecomment-33023169)

~~~
angersock
bwahahahahah that's awesome:

 _I will take a look later. Much much later. Because I 'm Ukrainian and we
have revolution right now. Sorry_

And then the supportive comments. <3 open sores software.

~~~
IgorPartola
Yeah, that comment also reminds me of
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0WStLAYB9Q](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0WStLAYB9Q).
OK, I'll stop redditing all over the place.

------
chiph
Besides the language issue and the politics, I suspect there's also an age
issue. From talking to friends there, the younger people want to gravitate
towards Europe, as Europe is seen as more progressive and open. While the
older people prefer the stability of going with Russia.

------
aaron351
>8\. Why haven't the U.S. or Europe fixed this?

Seriously?

~~~
at-fates-hands
Obama's administration has been getting hammered for getting involved in these
types of conflicts. Not sure he wants to stretch the US resources any further
and is already hesitant to involve US military resources.See Egypt as exhibit
A.

Also, it's pretty frustrating when you see countries crying for help, then
when we finally send in military and financial aid, they're called "occupiers"
and told to leave the country and stay out of their affairs.

I'm of the opinion these places need to figure it out themselves. The US
shouldn't be in the position of being a global police force and jumping in
every time something breaks out somewhere.

~~~
shitgoose
I agree with you, except "countries crying for help" part. Did Afghanistan cry
for help? Or Iraq?

~~~
at-fates-hands
Sometimes I wonder when people say, "Why isn't the US helping out in (insert
country here)?" Then turn around and say, "Well, we never should have been in
Iraq." and forget about all the things Saddam Hussein did to his people:

[http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm#repression](http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm#repression)

Iraq has refused to allow the UN's Special Rapporteur for Human Rights to
return to Iraq since his first visit in 1992. The government of Iraq has
refused to allow the stationing of human rights monitors as required by the
resolutions of the UN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights.
The regime expelled UN personnel and NGOs who, until 1992, ensured the
delivery of humanitarian relief services throughout the country.

Iraqi authorities routinely practice extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions throughout those parts of the country still under regime control.
The total number of prisoners believed to have been executed since autumn 1997
exceeds 2,500. This includes hundreds of arbitrary executions in the last
months of 1998 at Abu Ghraib and Radwaniyah prisons near Baghdad.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Iraqi regime destroyed over 3,000 Kurdish
villages. The destruction of Kurdish and Turkomen homes is still going on in
Iraqi-controlled areas of northern Iraq, as evidenced the destruction by Iraqi
forces of civilian homes in the citadel of Kirkuk

Iraq's 1988-89 Anfal campaign subjected the Kurdish people in northern Iraq to
the most widespread attack of chemical weapons ever used against a civilian
population. The Iraqi military attacked a number of towns and villages in
northern Iraq with chemical weapons. In the town of Halabja alone, an
estimated 5,000 civilians were killed and more than 10,000 were injured.

Or maybe we should review life under the Taliban in Afghanistan prior to the
invasion?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Human_rights_abuses](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Human_rights_abuses)

According to a 55-page report by the United Nations, the Taliban, while trying
to consolidate control over northern and western Afghanistan, committed
systematic massacres against civilians

UN officials stated that there had been "15 massacres" between 1996 and
2001.[28][29] They also said, that "[t]hese have been highly systematic and
they all lead back to the [Taliban] Ministry of Defense or to Mullah Omar
himself."[28][29] "These are the same type of war crimes as were committed in
Bosnia and should be prosecuted in international courts", one UN official was
quoted as saying.[

n 1998, the United Nations accused the Taliban of denying emergency food by
the UN's World Food Programme to 160,000 hungry and starving people "for
political and military reasons".[152] The UN said the Taliban were starving
people for their military agenda and using humanitarian assistance as a weapon
of war.

On August 8, 1998 the Taliban launched an attack on Mazar-i Sharif. Of 1500
defenders only 100 survived the engagement. Once in control the Taliban began
to kill people indiscriminately. At first shooting people in the street, they
soon began to target Hazaras. Women were raped, and thousands of people were
locked in containers and left to suffocate. This ethnic cleansing left an
estimated 5,000 to 6,000 dead.

Maybe you're right, it would've been better to just stay out of both places. .
.

~~~
shitgoose
Your long list qualifies as "asking for trouble". The original question was
whether Iraq and Afghanistan were "crying for help".

Besides none of the items in your list was the real reason why US invaded
those countries.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>>>> Your long list qualifies as "asking for trouble"

SPEECHLESS.

So summary executions, starving your own people and using chemical weapons
qualifies in your mind as "asking for trouble"? I'd love to see the rest of
your Human Rights scale and what you think it takes to get to a level where
you think interdiction is needed.

~~~
shitgoose
My scale is simple - do not intervene at all. US pretense that they intervened
purely on humanitarian grounds is a pathetic lie obvious to the whole world.
After they intervened they left a mess that is worse then before. Besides,
after infamous appearance by Mr. Powell at the UN providing undeniable
evidence of universal evildoing, I think US would be a bit more, ...how should
I put it..., _careful_ about spreading justice around the globe.

------
claudius
Why is dividing the country peacefully apparently out of question? It seems to
have worked somewhat decently for the Czech and Slovac republics.

~~~
empthought
I think it is because there aren't two distinct nationalities in play here.
Even the Russian-speaking Ukrainians do not want to rejoin Russia; they would
prefer to be Ukrainian.

The situation is much closer to the situation in the United States than to
those in other central and eastern European cold war countries. While there
are strong regional divisions between Democrats and Republicans -- divisions
that are rooted in history and culture -- members of each party have large
contingents everywhere. And separatism/partition isn't seriously on the table
in the USA.

~~~
shitgoose
I believe that Crimea (peninsula in Black Sea) wouldn't mind to go back to
Russia since it has never been historically a Ukrainian territory. East of
Ukraine may not be keen on becoming Russian, but sure as hell they don't want
to be ruled by Western Ukraine. Differences between East and West of Ukraine
run deep and go far beyond political preferences. West sees East as scum.
Period. For example, when Western protestors in Kiev catch youths from the
East (they call them 'titushki', or provocateurs), protesters write the word
'SLAVE' on easterners' foreheads with permanent marker:
[http://icdn.lenta.ru/images/2014/01/27/13/20140127131837914/...](http://icdn.lenta.ru/images/2014/01/27/13/20140127131837914/detail_8d01dd6cb2f9103dd0cfc544aae2d3df.jpg).
I don't think East and West in Ukraine have any future together.

~~~
dmytrish
East also sees West as a land of rural people who do plumbing/maid work in
Europe for food and are wicked nationalists/Nazis.

The titushki you mentioned are not shamed just because they're from Eastern
Ukraine, but of what they did in Kiev for government money (beatings/vandalism
to discriminate Maidan).

So I have to admit that there are some deep cultural differences, indeed. But
when I try to imagine two Ukraines, there are so many questions (where to put
the border - _in any place_ it would tear apart close regions, there's no
clear border, it's a huge gradual gradient from West to East) that I see no
feasible answer.

~~~
shitgoose
"beatings/vandalism to discriminate Maidan"

You have to try really hard to discredit this (opposition in action):

[http://votarea.com/uploads/posts/2013-12/1385948933_1328475....](http://votarea.com/uploads/posts/2013-12/1385948933_1328475.jpg)
[http://img12.nnm.me/e/c/c/b/7/2dfacaf7de32a36db9cf7794f86.jp...](http://img12.nnm.me/e/c/c/b/7/2dfacaf7de32a36db9cf7794f86.jpg)

------
empthought
One other interesting fact about Ukraine: their national hero
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taras_Shevchenko](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taras_Shevchenko))
is a poet.

~~~
dmytrish
It's a common trait of Europe in XIX century: Pushkin in Russia, Adam
Mickiewicz in Poland, Byron in England, Schiller/Goethe in Germany - they're
all poets-heroes of the Romanticism Age - they all virtually determined their
national cultures for decades. But I agree that Shevchenko's influence was
much more profound for Ukraine than Pushkin's for Russia - maybe because the
culture and language of Ukraine were the only its remnants at that time
whereas Russia always had its state and its history, its army, bureaucracy and
its own religion.

------
iopq
'(Other scholars, though, believe it means "homeland.")' krai means "country",
not homeland

etymologically speaking, all of these words come from kroiti "to cut" \-
okraina is literally "the edge resulting from a cut, border"

while kraina is literally "cut out piece, area, country"

------
sologoub
Strangely, the article seems to omit this one detail that Kiev is the birth
place of Rus (Русь) statehood. Russia, as ruled by the Rurik family begun
there. Moscow only came to prominence because the Tatars/Mongols burned other
great cities of the time.

This makes assertions of Russian conquest a lot less black and white. Even the
languages diverged relatively recently. When you look at spelling of Russian
pre-Soviets, same mix of Cyrillic and Latin letters can be seen.

This article presents the narrative from the Zapadentsi (Western Ukraine) view
point, but does little to present the other side of the story.

It is an incredibly difficult and complex matter, and the opportunistic
politicians and outright crooks are taking advantage of the strife of the
population.

------
trurl123
Much of true and much of false. E.g. that Stalin is the cause of starvation.
Note that starvation was at Europe and America too at that time.

------
vdm
[http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/perspectives-ukrainian-
protes...](http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/perspectives-ukrainian-protests)

------
cliveowen
So even the Washington Post has decided to adopt Upworthy-like titles, I guess
that's the sad future of online news.

~~~
Zikes
Headlines starting with numbers have been around for ages. Often they're seen
as lazy or clickbait, but from time to time they can be used appropriately.

------
robbiep
The fact that his article has made it so high on HN is interesting to me

1) is it a sad reflection on society today, and an early sign of monetisation
of the WP, that a 'distractify/mashable/tweetable' title makes it up the ranks

2) is it scary that a east-west divide story makes it higher than a 'Syria
torn in half' story?

3) ... Why am I afraid that intellectually vacuous titles such as ELI5
actually get upvoted?

