Shouldn't it be "stands"?

Given that this is from the NYT, US rules should apply I think. Stand would be fine in a British publication, but I suspect an error here from a US outlet.

yes

British usage is often like this— referring to teams, companies and other groups (in this case, a whole country) in the plural, where Americans would use the singular.

I’m from England and it’s fine to use this form of the verb here since ‘Ukraine’ is composed of many people, thus the third-person plural makes sense

As a native English (US) speaker it indeed sounds more natural to me to say "stands" as Ukraine is a singular entity, but you could make the case that Ukraine (made up of many people) would "stand" (no S) to gain something.

To me (an American) this should be "stands", but I think this is correct as "stands" in British English (it would be best if a native speaker of one of these dialects could confirm this). In general, the US and the UK have different rules for when group nouns are treated as singular or plural.

Not necessarily. It doesn’t work in American English but some dialects treat countries as plural nouns.

This very much depends on the style guide of the publication. It's not uncommon to see teams and countries being treated as plural subjects. For example every article on ESPNCrincinfo treats countries/teams as being plural.

the team is/are the police is/are

Yes

yeah, looks like a typo to me.

Probably it said, "what Ukrainians stand to gain" and they went back and changed it to Ukraine, but forgot to check the grammar. It's not a mistake a native will make outside of a typo.

I saw from other comments mentioning the difference between UK and US usage. I interpret this as referring to the people of Ukraine rather than Ukraine as a singular entity. Similar to how you'd use the name of a sports team.

I'm not 100% sure about the writer's intentions but it most likely refers to Ukraine as a collective (thus plural), not Ukraine as a single nation state or a country. These are called **collective nouns**. They usually appear to be singular but can be either depending on the intention of the writer and what they want to emphasize. Examples of collective nouns could be: \-Police ***are/is*** on the case. \-The band ***were not/was not*** pleased to have their concert cancelled. \-The jury **are/is** asked not to talk to the press. There's no clear consensus so it's best to go with what sounds the least awkward or is most often used. There are some exceptions to that but I don't remember them off the top of my head. It's the safest bet why "Ukraine stand" is used without the "s". Ukraine is a collective noun. Or as others pointed out it could be a simple misprint. They happen.

“Stands” sounds better yes. It may have originally said “Ukrainians stand” and was edited sloppily.

As others have pointed out, this is almost certainly an error on the part of the writer. However, there is another quirk of North American English which might be at play: "It remains unclear that Ukraine stand to gain" would be grammatically correct in dialects which preserve the subjunctive mood (far more common in the US than UK). Singular subjunctive forms are often the same as plural indicative but require a trigger word such as "if" or "that" near the beginning of the clause. To reiterate, whether\* it be improper use of subjunctive or improper use of plural, the writer appears to have muddled something in translating his thoughts to the page. \*"Whether" can also trigger subjunctive, but, as far as I know, "what" cannot.

It sounds like they're referring to Ukraine a collective. Like they were implying "the people of." It's definitely awkward though

yes, nobodys perfect 😊

It should. That's just a typo.

Yes. However I understand what this is trying to imply if this is intentional. “Ukraine as a collective entity” could be interpreted as plural because it’s a group of humans but it’s generally grammatically incorrect to refer to it as anything but singular

Yes, it should be stands. I wonder if they wrote “Ukrainians stand”, then changed the noun but forgot to change the adjective. Because it’s an odd mistake to make otherwise.

Yes, it should be stands. Some nouns - like team / staff / council / committee etc can be either singular or plural in grammar. Writers might choose a singular or plural depending on what they wish to communicate: the committee is unanimous / the committee are divided on this issue. However, in this context - two sides in a conflict / multiple stakeholders in a negotiation, it is customary to use a singular. If this were a sporting competition, the writer could use a plural: The Utah Jazz stand to win the NBA. Using a country name in this context as a plural is clumsy. It might reflect that in other languages, the word can be plural.

Ukraine here is being used as a collective noun which can be singular or plural depending on if the entity is acting in unison or is in disagreement. The classic examples are ‘Parliament passes the bill unanimously.’ vs ‘Parliament fail to pass the bill.’ I would say that treating Ukraine as a collective noun is incorrect though because it’s referring to the country, not really its people. The writer also has Russia as a singular noun in the same sentence, so stylistically it would follow that the nouns should align.

I think it should be stands, yes. Tricky one because 'what does Ukraine stand to gain' is correct, but 'it remains unclear what Ukraine stands to gain' is correct. A subtle difference which as a native speaker I understand but can't explain

Yes, but I think the wording is kind of weird, would rather prefer "has" instead

Not necessarily.

this is an interesting difference between US and traditional english. in the US they treat nouns that are a collection of people grammatically as if they are one entity whereas in traditional english they are treated as if you are talking about multiple people.

It would either be "Ukraine stands" as the nation is singular, or "Ukrainians stand" referring to the people as plural.

Yes, it's a typo. They may have originally wrote "what Russia and Ukraine stand to gain" and then edited out Russia and forgot to update the verb to match the singular.

Yes, that's a typo

Didn't see it elsewhere in the comments so I thought I'd mention that this usage of a plural verb form with a singular subject (or vice versa) is called [Synesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesis). Per wikipedia this is more common in British English but exists to some extent in all dialects. In this case I think they should say "stands" though, yes.

I am British and I genuinely do not know what people are talking about when they’re saying they’re using Ukraine as a “collective noun”. Sports teams, I can agree with but I’ve literally never heard countries used in this way. It is a typo. It sounds unnatural to my British ear.

Yes

The statement is right. Often the country name is taken as plural, especially in headlines. In sports page the headline would run: India win against Pakistan.