4 ms·

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

adwf 13y ago
I think because the large majority of the wealth is in the south-eastern Russian-speaking section. From the article, it sounds like that is where all the coal and iron mines are. Not to mention the most productive farmland. The Russian-speaking section also encompasses the major ports of Odessa and Sevastopol. So a split down language lines would leave the Ukrainian segment landlocked and with a vastly weakened economy.
- dmytrish 13y ago
  That was true about ten years ago and before. Now East has a very inefficient, power-hungry, noncompetitive economy that starts to eat more money for social subsidies than it produces (Yanukovych himself decided recently to make the "pride" of Donetsk regions, state-owned coal mines private because of their unprofitableness). Crimea has been always unprofitable even with its lucrative tourism industry. East views its post-soviet industry as asset whereas West often sees its as liability and drag to the burning need of industry modernization.
  - kutakbash 13y ago
    >starts to eat more money for social subsidies than it produces >Crimea has been always unprofitable even with its lucrative tourism industry Not a marker of anything, there are only a few oblasts in Ukraine that are profitable (taxes - government spending), until very recently none of them were in the Western part of the country. This may be not the best way to judge contribution of different parts of the country into the economy. If you give a look at exports structure (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Ukraine_Export_Treemap.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Ukraine_E...), you can clearly see that it is dominated by products of exclusively Eastern industries.
empthought 13y ago
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.
- apaprocki 13y ago
  I agree. This is probably the best way to relate the situation to someone in the US. No one would take you seriously here if you proposed splitting "blue" states into a separate country and proposing a split there seems equally far fetched.
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    Splitting up the United States is a perfectly reasonable idea and a lot of people take it seriously. http://www.moreright.net/splitting-apart-the-united-states http://www.moreright.net/splitting-apart-the-united-states
    - protomyth 13y ago
      Given how integrated the economy and land use is, it is not a reasonable idea in the near term. If you actually were going to divide the US on a red / blue split then it would be more appropriate at a county level[1] and would result in a bunch of city-states and one big land area[2]. 1) states are not really granular enough given the existence of "battleground states" and what that means for election divisions 2) LA and SF might want to buy a desalination plant fairly quickly
      - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
        The split is not red-blue. There are distinct regional cultures in America that might be called nations. Scroll down and look at the county map in the link. Read "American Nations".
nakedrobot2 13y ago
Czechs and Slovaks are two distinct "tribes". The fact that they existed together as one nation in the first place was somewhat arbitrary. That said, the fact that they were split again into two nations was somewhat arbitrary as well, not everyone was in favor of that, not by a long shot.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  The Slovaks were sort of reluctantly dragged into the union by the Czechs in the first place. The Slovaks were much more Catholic and traditionalist and quite comfortable with the Austro Hungarians.
  - Squarex 13y ago
    I don't think they were comfortable with the Austria-Hungary at all. They were oppressed by Hungarians much more than Czechs by Austrians. Slovaks and Hungarians have pretty complicated relations even in present day.

adwf 13y ago

I think because the large majority of the wealth is in the south-eastern Russian-speaking section. From the article, it sounds like that is where all the coal and iron mines are. Not to mention the most productive farmland. The Russian-speaking section also encompasses the major ports of Odessa and Sevastopol. So a split down language lines would leave the Ukrainian segment landlocked and with a vastly weakened economy.

dmytrish 13y ago
That was true about ten years ago and before. Now East has a very inefficient, power-hungry, noncompetitive economy that starts to eat more money for social subsidies than it produces (Yanukovych himself decided recently to make the "pride" of Donetsk regions, state-owned coal mines private because of their unprofitableness). Crimea has been always unprofitable even with its lucrative tourism industry. East views its post-soviet industry as asset whereas West often sees its as liability and drag to the burning need of industry modernization.
- kutakbash 13y ago
  >starts to eat more money for social subsidies than it produces >Crimea has been always unprofitable even with its lucrative tourism industry Not a marker of anything, there are only a few oblasts in Ukraine that are profitable (taxes - government spending), until very recently none of them were in the Western part of the country. This may be not the best way to judge contribution of different parts of the country into the economy. If you give a look at exports structure (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Ukraine_Export_Treemap.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Ukraine_E...), you can clearly see that it is dominated by products of exclusively Eastern industries.

empthought 13y ago

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.

apaprocki 13y ago
I agree. This is probably the best way to relate the situation to someone in the US. No one would take you seriously here if you proposed splitting "blue" states into a separate country and proposing a split there seems equally far fetched.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  Splitting up the United States is a perfectly reasonable idea and a lot of people take it seriously. http://www.moreright.net/splitting-apart-the-united-states http://www.moreright.net/splitting-apart-the-united-states
  - protomyth 13y ago
    Given how integrated the economy and land use is, it is not a reasonable idea in the near term. If you actually were going to divide the US on a red / blue split then it would be more appropriate at a county level[1] and would result in a bunch of city-states and one big land area[2]. 1) states are not really granular enough given the existence of "battleground states" and what that means for election divisions 2) LA and SF might want to buy a desalination plant fairly quickly
    - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
      The split is not red-blue. There are distinct regional cultures in America that might be called nations. Scroll down and look at the county map in the link. Read "American Nations".

nakedrobot2 13y ago

Czechs and Slovaks are two distinct "tribes". The fact that they existed together as one nation in the first place was somewhat arbitrary. That said, the fact that they were split again into two nations was somewhat arbitrary as well, not everyone was in favor of that, not by a long shot.

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
The Slovaks were sort of reluctantly dragged into the union by the Czechs in the first place. The Slovaks were much more Catholic and traditionalist and quite comfortable with the Austro Hungarians.
- Squarex 13y ago
  I don't think they were comfortable with the Austria-Hungary at all. They were oppressed by Hungarians much more than Czechs by Austrians. Slovaks and Hungarians have pretty complicated relations even in present day.