????本周，有關(guān)烏克蘭政治沖突的消息繼續(xù)占領(lǐng)各大媒體頭版頭條，當(dāng)?shù)匚溲b人員也于周五占領(lǐng)了親俄羅斯地區(qū)克里米亞。面對(duì)鋪天蓋地的新聞報(bào)導(dǎo)，人們很容易迷失。

????過去三年，全球各地的起義與示威此起彼伏，而記者、權(quán)威人士與分析師都喜歡將這些事件進(jìn)行不恰當(dāng)?shù)念惐取Ｈツ甏禾?，伊斯坦布爾爆發(fā)抗議示威時(shí)，一些媒體猜測(cè)，塔克西姆廣場(chǎng)會(huì)不會(huì)成為土耳其的“解放廣場(chǎng)”。2011年初，埃及民眾在位于開羅市中心的“解放廣場(chǎng)”舉行游行示威，最終終結(jié)了當(dāng)時(shí)埃及總統(tǒng)胡斯尼?穆巴拉克的統(tǒng)治?，F(xiàn)在，解放廣場(chǎng)這個(gè)交通環(huán)島已經(jīng)成了起義成功的標(biāo)志。

????更近一些，最近烏克蘭起義者們將總統(tǒng)維克托?亞努科維奇趕下了臺(tái)，記者們更直接將烏克蘭起義與“解放廣場(chǎng)”相提并論。這種比較或許能帶來不錯(cuò)的版面效果，讀者也可能對(duì)此很感興趣，但在很大程度上，這種類比很膚淺。不錯(cuò)，打倒穆巴拉克和亞努科維奇的抗議活動(dòng)都是在廣場(chǎng)上舉行的，廣場(chǎng)的名字也有類似的來歷，但除了這種最抽象的相似性以外，埃及和烏克蘭兩個(gè)國家的政治動(dòng)向完全不是一回事。

????然而在某一方面，埃及和烏克蘭民眾確實(shí)面臨著相同的挑戰(zhàn)：他們的國家都已破產(chǎn)。這種境況進(jìn)一步增加了這兩個(gè)國家政治前景的不確定性。

????不管是2011年的埃及起義，還是最近的烏克蘭游行，原因都不僅僅是民眾對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)條件的不滿。埃及人之所以走上街頭，是因?yàn)橄胱非笠粋€(gè)更自由、公平的社會(huì)；烏克蘭民眾舉行示，則是為了表達(dá)對(duì)亞努科維奇的抗議——為了保住俄羅斯的一大筆財(cái)政援助，亞努科維奇拒絕簽署一項(xiàng)歐盟協(xié)議?；o爆發(fā)抗議活動(dòng)的導(dǎo)火索可能直接與貿(mào)易、金融及國家經(jīng)濟(jì)福利相關(guān)。但對(duì)許多烏克蘭人而言，這場(chǎng)游行更關(guān)乎國家的身份認(rèn)同。

????西方分析人士和決策者們很可能在烏克蘭政治問題還未解決、經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境還相當(dāng)脆弱的情況下就忍不住立即許諾經(jīng)濟(jì)援助、貸款擔(dān)保、免除債務(wù)或簽訂國際貨幣基金組織（International Monetary Fund）合約。這些做法是積極的，而且政府官員深諳此道，但對(duì)烏克蘭民眾來說，他們有責(zé)任通過艱難的政治改革，來挽救國家經(jīng)濟(jì)，使它免于崩潰。

????長(zhǎng)期以來，政策及學(xué)術(shù)界在“排序”問題上一直存有爭(zhēng)議，即對(duì)于一個(gè)處于政治過渡期的國家來說，應(yīng)該先發(fā)展經(jīng)濟(jì)還是先進(jìn)行民主改革？解答這個(gè)問題的文章連篇累牘，但實(shí)際上，這個(gè)問題給出的選擇根本就是錯(cuò)誤的：這兩件事應(yīng)該打包進(jìn)行。以埃及為例，穆巴拉克剛剛下臺(tái)，人們就清晰地看到，經(jīng)濟(jì)的惡化會(huì)嚴(yán)重影響國家的政治局勢(shì)與穩(wěn)定性。2000年中期，埃及對(duì)外鼓吹宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)指標(biāo)良好，民眾起義后才發(fā)現(xiàn)國家已欠下巨額債務(wù)，補(bǔ)貼無法維持，貧困率和失業(yè)率（尤其在年輕人中）也高得驚人。政治局勢(shì)的不確定性及穆巴拉克下臺(tái)引起的騷亂也使得外匯的主要來源——旅游業(yè)急劇下滑，而在搖搖欲墜的油氣行業(yè)，外資也大量出逃。

????As Ukraine's political strife continue making headlines this week, and as armed men on Friday occupy the country's pro-Russia region of Crimea, it's easy to get lost in the news.

????Over the last three years, as uprisings and demonstrations have erupted around the world, journalists, pundits, and other analysts have wrongly drawn parallels between these events. When protests broke out in Istanbul last spring, some news outlets wondered whether Taksim Square was Turkey's "Tahrir Square" -- a reference to the now iconic traffic roundabout in central Cairo where Egyptian demonstrations brought an end to then president Hosni Mubarak's rule in early 2011.

????More recently, journalists covering Ukraine's uprising against ousted President Viktor Yanukovych have made direct comparison to Tahrir Square. These comparisons make great copy and perhaps keep viewers interested, but they are largely superficial. It is true that the protests that brought down both Mubarak and Yanukovych were in squares whose names are derived similarly, but other than at that most abstract level, the political dynamics in Egypt and Ukraine are hardly analogous.

????Yet there is one specific area where the Egyptians and the Ukrainians have strikingly similar challenges: Both countries are broke. And this raises the prospects for further political instability.

????Neither Egypt's 2011 uprising nor the recent demonstrations in Ukraine was principally about economic grievances, however. Egyptians poured into the streets wanting to live in a freer and more just society. Ukrainians were responding to Yanukovych's rejection of an agreement with the European Union in favor of a generous financial assistance package from Moscow. Although the trigger for the protests in Kiev may have been linked directly to trade, finance, and the country's economic well-being, for many Ukrainians, the demonstrations were about their country's identity.

????There is a temptation for Western analysts and policymakers to rush into Ukraine's currently unsettled political and tenuous economic environment with promises of aid, loan guarantees, debt relief, and an International Monetary Fund agreement. This is positive -- and something that bureaucrats know how to do -- but Ukrainians have an obligation to undertake difficult political reforms to improve the chances that the country's economy does not collapse.

????Within the policy and academic communities there has long been a debate about what is often referred to as "sequencing." That is, should countries that are undergoing political transitions focus on economic development or democratic reform? Although efforts to answer this question have taken up reams of paper, it actually sets up a false choice. Countries need to do both simultaneously. Consider, for example, Egypt. It became clear relatively quickly after Mubarak's fall that a deteriorating economy would have an impact on the country's politics and stability. Although Egypt boasted good macroeconomic indicators during the mid-2000s, the uprising laid bare a reality of massive debt, unsustainable subsidies, stunning rates of poverty, and high unemployment, especially among young Egyptians. The political uncertainty and chaos around Mubarak's fall also contributed to steep declines in tourism -- a principal source of foreign currency -- and also chased away foreign investments outside a faltering hydrocarbon sector.