Ukraine's European Revolution?

[Ed Anger]

Oh dear god.

[Malthus]

Yeah, I'm not understanding how the "fact" that certain parts of Ukraine right now have higher standards of living than others has anything to do with anything. Is your theory that being ruled by Poland prior to 1940 was so destructive that its terrible effects outlasted even 50 years of Soviet rule, and 20 odd years of independance? 

[Valmy]

How much Ukrainian history do you know?

Enough to know a country's modern economy is probably based more on its 1945-present history than what happened between 1920 and 1939.  Somehow I think whatever happened when the Poles were in charge was all demolished during WWII anyway.

[alfred russel]

When Yugoslavia worked it worked a lot better than the current situation.  I think it's an unfortunate reality that in times of political and economic collapse people fall back on their most basic identities, and that the collapse of Yugoslavia had a lot more to do with Socialism being terrible than the idea of Yugoslavia being bad.

Without socialism, Yugoslavia never would have worked. It was tried after WWI, and the state was completely dysfunctional by the time the Nazis rolled across the border (to the extent they couldn't put up a fight).

[Queequeg]

Rule of Western Ukraine by Moscow: 1939-1941, 1941-1990. 
Rule of Western Ukraine by Poland: 1918-1939
Rule of Western Ukraine by the Austro-Hungarian Empire: 1795-1914
rule of Western Ukraine by Poland and Lithuania: 14th Century-18th Century.

[Sheilbh]

When Yugoslavia worked it worked a lot better than the current situation.  I think it's an unfortunate reality that in times of political and economic collapse people fall back on their most basic identities, and that the collapse of Yugoslavia had a lot more to do with Socialism being terrible than the idea of Yugoslavia being bad.

I'm not sure I agree with any of this. I'm not sure when Yugoslavia worked or what you can really mean by working. I think nationalism exists in all sorts of situations not just political and economic collapse - as you can see in Yugoslavia, but also Scotland and Catalonia.

The idea of Yugoslavia may be bad the practice was only ever really possible with Tito.

That's not what I'm saying, but blaming Moscow for all of Ukraine's ills doesn't have anything to do with facts or evidence and everything to do with nationalism.

But I think it does have to do with facts. You can look at Russia's near neighbourhood since the collapse of the USSR and the countries that have done best are the ones that have left the Russian sphere as much as they can and tried to join the rest of Europe. The ones that haven't done well are either Putinist satrapies or unstable messes because, from Moscow's perspective, that's better than EU and NATO members.

And I think that's the choice for Ukraine.

[Valmy]

Rule of Western Ukraine by Moscow: 1939-1941, 1941-1990. 
Rule of Western Ukraine by Poland: 1918-1939
Rule of Western Ukraine by the Austro-Hungarian Empire: 1795-1914
rule of Western Ukraine by Poland and Lithuania: 14th Century-18th Century.

I thought we were talking about modern economics not the ability of the 16th peasants to acquire adequate supplies of manure.

[Queequeg]

How much Ukrainian history do you know?

Enough to know a country's modern economy is probably based more on its 1945-present history than what happened between 1920 and 1939.  Somehow I think whatever happened when the Poles were in charge was all demolished during WWII anyway.

Again, not really?  Germany went from rubble to the wealthiest nation in Europe in, what, 30 years?  These historical legacies are crucial. 

I think there's an argument to be made that the Soviet destruction of the relatively functional Ukrainian agricultural economy did permanent damage to the Ukrainian economy.    I don't know, however.

[Ed Anger]

Rule of Western Ukraine by Moscow: 1939-1941, 1941-1990. 
Rule of Western Ukraine by Poland: 1918-1939
Rule of Western Ukraine by the Austro-Hungarian Empire: 1795-1914
rule of Western Ukraine by Poland and Lithuania: 14th Century-18th Century.

I thought we were talking about modern economics not the ability of the 16th peasants to acquire adequate supplies of manure.

Boy, if I was around back then, I would be rich. Being so full of shit.

[HVC]

Oh dear god.

your liver can't take all the shots, can it?

[Ed Anger]

Oh dear god.

your liver can't take all the shots, can it?

No. 

[Sheilbh]

Rule of Western Ukraine by Moscow: 1939-1941, 1941-1990. 
Rule of Western Ukraine by Poland: 1918-1939
Rule of Western Ukraine by the Austro-Hungarian Empire: 1795-1914
rule of Western Ukraine by Poland and Lithuania: 14th Century-18th Century.

Okay. But as I say in 1990 Poland and Ukraine were roughly at the same level economically. Poland's now three times richer. I'd argue the key difference is Poland chose Europe - with the required democratic and economic reforms - while Ukraine's still heavily influenced by an initially chaotic and now rather organised mafia state.

[alfred russel]

Rule of Western Ukraine by Moscow: 1939-1941, 1941-1990. 
Rule of Western Ukraine by Poland: 1918-1939
Rule of Western Ukraine by the Austro-Hungarian Empire: 1795-1914
rule of Western Ukraine by Poland and Lithuania: 14th Century-18th Century.

Spellus, I love history and pulling history into all sorts of topics. But I don't see how Poland-Lithuania in the 18th century has much impact on income distribution today. For instance, in the US we generally discount the impact of the different economic systems of the Cherokee, Apachee, and Navajo when talking about why states are better off than others.

[Valmy]

Again, not really?  Germany went from rubble to the wealthiest nation in Europe in, what, 30 years?  These historical legacies are crucial.

It did?  Because East Germany sure looked like a shithole after 30 years.  Strange that it had such a positive impact in the Ukraine.

[Queequeg]

I'm not sure I agree with any of this. I'm not sure when Yugoslavia worked or what you can really mean by working. I think nationalism exists in all sorts of situations not just political and economic collapse - as you can see in Yugoslavia, but also Scotland and Catalonia.

Neither have broken away or is there a history of recent ethnic violence.  By comparison, the complete collapse of political authority in Spain during the SCW saw substantial violence by Catalan separatists, and the Carlist wars saw Basques singing songs about massacring the stub-ears.  Similarly, if the UK was to collapse economically and undergo a substantial political crisis, it seems possible that you'd see real Welsh and Scottish independence movements with violent wings. 

The idea of Yugoslavia may be bad the practice was only ever really possible with Tito.

IDK. 

I think you're overselling the dysfunction of Titoist Yugoslavia.  It was probably the most functional of the Authoritarian Socialist states.  It wasn't a horrible place to live. Some kind of federated republic a la India wasn't an impossibility.