5 ms·

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 li

by 11001 13y ago

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.

withouted 13y ago
sorry, what about policy brutality? kidnappings? tortures? murders? corruption? hiring of thugs? beating of journalists? Dmytro Bulatov was found with a part of his year cut off, cheek slashed and crucified by ukrainian police. The Cossak that was undressed? This isnt just an economic protest, dont reduce to such. Those tendencies finished a long time ago, it has now turned into something completely different.
- 11001 13y ago
  Of course not. In fact the police brutality towards a few peaceful student protesters was what triggered the mass protests in Kiev and all over Ukraine, it wasn't about any particular agreement as many people wrongly believe. I'm just talking about the Russia vs the West politics in Ukraine.
marcosdumay 13y ago
> 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 13y ago
  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.
- skylan_q 13y ago
  One of the conditions for joining the EU are reforms that require Ukraine to borrow $150 billion from the IMF to "re-structure" the country. Conditions on that include austerity and freezing wages. It's no surprise support for joining the EU is only in the 40-45% range.
- gerbal 13y ago
  The government of Ukraine doesn't have enough money to pay its debts. It needs to borrow money to pay its debts or default.
malkung 13y ago
Ok, it's well-meaning EU vs. corrupt Russia. Culturally, Ukraine seems to be much closer to Russia than to EU. So I think the end result will be similar to what happened with Arabic Spring revolutions, when the West hoped to see Western standards of democracy implanted into foreign cultures that could not possibly adhere to them (although they declared so initially). So I doubt very much that after the association with EU Ukraine will resemble even Poland or Hungary - in terms of economy or levels of corruption. I guess EU realizes that, too, and it's all about geopolitical games with Russia, after all.
- fauigerzigerk 13y ago
  No, democracy is not like making Ukranians or Egyptians love baseball, bullfighting and bratwurst. It's not some oddity from western cultures. It means rule of the people as opposed to the rule of some small group of thugs with guns (aristocracy, apparatchiks, the mafia, military dictators, religious leaders, etc). Everyone, everywhere in the world understands that by now. What is specific to western cultures is that we don't expect the thugs to always prevail. All that talk about democracy as a foreign implant is a glaringly obvious and self serving attempt by the ruling thugs to present the status quo as an inevitability so they can keep lining their pockets without interference by the people. Let's not fall for it.
  - geoka9 13y ago
    > It means rule of the people This definition is wrought with controversies. Let's say it's a rule of law? Then everything falls into place.
  - malkung 13y ago
    You seem to think that democracy is some God-given quality, universal to all people, and you can introduce it into any country just by invading it or inducing a regime change in some other way. I think it is a social institution that can evolve over long time, and only in certain societies, which do not suffer of civil wars, foreign invasions, ethnic or religious conflicts, poor economy, etc. A country that does not have these democratic traditions will not be able to suddenly accept them, simply because there are different traditions of making things work. As to the slogan "democracy is rule of the people as opposed to a small group of thugs concerned only about their pockets", I assure you that Stalin, for example, subscribed to that, too. It is a very abstract phrase, and you can hide almost anything behind it.

by 11001 13y ago

withouted 13y ago

sorry, what about policy brutality? kidnappings? tortures? murders? corruption? hiring of thugs? beating of journalists? Dmytro Bulatov was found with a part of his year cut off, cheek slashed and crucified by ukrainian police. The Cossak that was undressed? This isnt just an economic protest, dont reduce to such. Those tendencies finished a long time ago, it has now turned into something completely different.

11001 13y ago
Of course not. In fact the police brutality towards a few peaceful student protesters was what triggered the mass protests in Kiev and all over Ukraine, it wasn't about any particular agreement as many people wrongly believe. I'm just talking about the Russia vs the West politics in Ukraine.

marcosdumay 13y ago

> 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 13y ago
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.
skylan_q 13y ago
One of the conditions for joining the EU are reforms that require Ukraine to borrow $150 billion from the IMF to "re-structure" the country. Conditions on that include austerity and freezing wages. It's no surprise support for joining the EU is only in the 40-45% range.
gerbal 13y ago
The government of Ukraine doesn't have enough money to pay its debts. It needs to borrow money to pay its debts or default.

malkung 13y ago

Ok, it's well-meaning EU vs. corrupt Russia. Culturally, Ukraine seems to be much closer to Russia than to EU. So I think the end result will be similar to what happened with Arabic Spring revolutions, when the West hoped to see Western standards of democracy implanted into foreign cultures that could not possibly adhere to them (although they declared so initially). So I doubt very much that after the association with EU Ukraine will resemble even Poland or Hungary - in terms of economy or levels of corruption. I guess EU realizes that, too, and it's all about geopolitical games with Russia, after all.

fauigerzigerk 13y ago
No, democracy is not like making Ukranians or Egyptians love baseball, bullfighting and bratwurst. It's not some oddity from western cultures. It means rule of the people as opposed to the rule of some small group of thugs with guns (aristocracy, apparatchiks, the mafia, military dictators, religious leaders, etc). Everyone, everywhere in the world understands that by now. What is specific to western cultures is that we don't expect the thugs to always prevail. All that talk about democracy as a foreign implant is a glaringly obvious and self serving attempt by the ruling thugs to present the status quo as an inevitability so they can keep lining their pockets without interference by the people. Let's not fall for it.
- geoka9 13y ago
  > It means rule of the people This definition is wrought with controversies. Let's say it's a rule of law? Then everything falls into place.
- malkung 13y ago
  You seem to think that democracy is some God-given quality, universal to all people, and you can introduce it into any country just by invading it or inducing a regime change in some other way. I think it is a social institution that can evolve over long time, and only in certain societies, which do not suffer of civil wars, foreign invasions, ethnic or religious conflicts, poor economy, etc. A country that does not have these democratic traditions will not be able to suddenly accept them, simply because there are different traditions of making things work. As to the slogan "democracy is rule of the people as opposed to a small group of thugs concerned only about their pockets", I assure you that Stalin, for example, subscribed to that, too. It is a very abstract phrase, and you can hide almost anything behind it.