By Aleksey Bashtavenko

Academic Composition

Ukraine’s transition from a former member of the USSR with a command economy to a chaotic market economy has been a challenging and transformative journey. Under President Leonid Kravchuk’s leadership, Ukraine embarked on the path toward a market-oriented system. However, the 1990s proved to be a tumultuous period marked by economic chaos, hyperinflation, and widespread corruption. This transition demonstrated the paradox of freedom, as Ukraine grappled with the weight of responsibility that accompanied its newfound independence.

In contrast to Ukraine’s trajectory, Russia had an opportunity to embrace freedom during Boris Yeltsin’s presidency. Yeltsin believed in the power of freedom and pursued reforms to dismantle the Soviet system. However, the Russian people, perhaps not prepared for the responsibilities that came with freedom, rejected Yeltsin’s reforms. The longing for stability and security led them to elect Vladimir Putin, who promised to restore order and consolidate power. This turn towards an authoritarian regime showcased the challenge of accepting responsibility in the pursuit of freedom.

Ukraine, on the other hand, took a different path. Despite the difficulties of the transition and the chaos of the market economy, Ukrainians continued to fight for their right to be free and bear the responsibility that came with it. They stood up for their independence, aligning themselves with Western values and pursuing a pro-European and market-oriented course. The ongoing war in Ukraine against Russia-backed separatists can be seen as a justification of their choice to be free and their determination to take responsibility for their own destiny.

The paradox of freedom is evident in both Russia and Ukraine’s experiences. Russia’s rejection of Yeltsin’s reforms and the subsequent rise of Putin’s authoritarian regime demonstrated a reluctance to shoulder the responsibilities that accompany freedom. In contrast, Ukraine’s ongoing struggle for independence, marked by sacrifices and the weight of responsibility, exemplifies their commitment to a free and civilized society.

The Ukrainian people, despite facing economic hardships, political divisions, and external pressures, have chosen the path of freedom. They continue to fight a war, defending their right to take responsibility for their own destiny and standing up for the principles and values that come with freedom. Ukraine’s journey serves as a reminder that the pursuit of freedom necessitates not only the desire for independence but also the willingness to accept the responsibilities and challenges that come with it.

Ukraine’s journey toward freedom and the pursuit of a civilized society encompasses various historical and ideological aspects. In addition to the paradox of freedom and the responsibility it entails, Ukraine’s trajectory involves the influence of key figures such as Nestor Makhno, Stepan Bandera, and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).

Nestor Makhno, an anarchist activist, played a significant role in Ukraine’s history during the early 20th century. Makhno fiercely opposed both the authoritarian overreach of Poland and the Soviet Union, advocating for self-governance and communal organization. Although Makhno’s ideals were rooted in anarchism, his activism demonstrated a commitment to defending the rights and autonomy of the Ukrainian people. His actions represented resistance against external forces and highlighted the longing for a liberated Ukraine.

Similarly, Stepan Bandera and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) defended the territorial integrity of Ukraine against both Polish and Russian incursions during the tumultuous periods of the early and mid-20th century. While the OUN had authoritarian tendencies, their resistance to foreign occupation and their commitment to Ukrainian independence were key elements in shaping the Ukrainian identity and their determination to preserve their cultural heritage.

Present-day Ukraine presents an intriguing case study in the examination of the Attack the System ideology, as articulated by Keith Preston. Ukraine’s struggle for independence and its pursuit of a free and civilized society reflect the core principles of this ideology, which critiques and challenges centralized power structures and promotes the decentralization of authority. Ukraine, despite its imperfections and challenges, has at times resembled more of anarchy—a society striving for self-governance, personal freedoms, and autonomy—than an autocracy like Russia.

Ukraine’s rejection of authoritarian tendencies, its commitment to democratic values, and its ongoing fight for independence demonstrate the grassroots movements and popular uprisings that align with the Attack the System ideology. The Ukrainian people’s resilience in the face of external pressures and their determination to shape their own destiny underscore the importance of individual freedoms, local governance, and resistance against oppressive forces.

As Ukraine’s history unfolds, it serves as a living testament to the complexities and contradictions of freedom, responsibility, and the pursuit of a civilized society. The ongoing struggles and aspirations of the Ukrainian people highlight their relentless pursuit of self-determination, cultural preservation, and the establishment of a society that values individual liberties and local autonomy.