There is something fundamentally wrong with the statement that “The Ukraine is the way the Russians referred to that part of the country during Soviet times”. Russian has no definite article, and as far as I know, the Russian name for (the) Ukraine has not changed since the country’s independence.
‘The Ukraine’ is how English-speaking people have traditionally referred to the country—since long before the Soviet Union was ever a thing, too (at least as far back as the 17th century).
There isn’t one, specific reason why some countries acquire the in English. In some cases, it’s because the name is semantically recognisable as referring to a specific thing (the United States of America, for example, refers to a particular set of united states); in others, it is either random or due to some historical meaning of the name that is no longer clear (The Gambia, for example).
There is a tendency that countries with plural names (as well as archipelagos) have the definite article: the Netherlands, the Philippines, the Canaries, the Bahamas, etc.
There are only two country names and one ‘area name’ (for lack of a better word) that officially have the definite as an integral part: the Bahamas, the Gambia, and the Congo (the latter used in the names of two countries that make up the ‘area’: Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo). In all other cases, it is a matter of euphony and convention—to many people, it simply sounds nicer to include the definite article. With some countries, the tendency to include the article has diminished, making forms with the article sound quaint and archaic. Who these days says ‘the Argentine’, for instance, rather than just ‘Argentina’?
The article does not, however, in and of itself indicate that the country whose name it is attached to is seen as a part/colony/state/subject of another country. That interpretation is—to my knowledge—only applied to (the) Ukraine, and it was invented by the Ukrainians themselves.
There is nothing wrong with avoiding the article and thereby pleasing those Ukrainians who feel that it somehow belittles them—unfounded and unwarranted as such a feeling may be—but outside of official statements where a specific guideline dictates what form to use, there is also nothing wrong with using the traditional English name, with the article.
In brief: the only difference between ‘Ukraine’ and ‘the Ukraine’ is political correctness and official guidelines.
The choice as to which to use comes down to the degree of formality of your text, and possibly also how much space you have available (e.g. when putting together a PowerPoint slide).
In general, using & implies a much more informal tone than and.
You will never be criticized for using and, whereas you run the risk of disapproval if you use & in anything but informal notes, tweets and the like.
Best Answer
Both of these terms are figurative usages, so it helps to look at the literal origins of each.
From OED:
Turning point
Definition 2 is the figurative use being used by the writer here.
The literal origin is in definition 1:
Just as a point where something literally turns doesn't carry either a positive or negative connotation, the figurative use turning point simply means a figurative point where events or consequences turn, which could be for either better or worse.
Oxford Dictionary's reference to "especially one with beneficial results" is not mentioned in OED, but it could be a reflection of usage frequency. The term is often used in phrases with a positive or hopeful connotation.
Tipping point
Tipping point is a much more recent term, attested as recently as 1957 by OED, whereas turning point was attested as early as 1836. The definition provided is only a draft edition according to the online edition. In the Washington Post article, as in this definition, the phrase is a figurative reference to the literal meaning, a point at which something physically tips over, marking a decisive change, and possibly a destructive or disruptive one. Imagine a ledge tipping over from weight, or a less destructive analogy: adding weights to a balance, one by one, until it tips in the other direction.
This sense doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation, but because it signals a more abrupt and dramatic change, it can have a connotation of disruption.