I think it has already become clear to many that Putin’s goal is the restoration of control over Ukraine. On this topic enough has been said as well; I will only add that in the worldview of figures like Putin, people and their will are absent. He perceives the Maidan and “color revolutions” in general as a conspiracy of “Americans” against him and his power. This is, of course, very dangerous, but it also gives us advantages, which I will discuss below.
Control over Ukraine can be restored by various means, from military to political. Ukraine will either simply cease to exist, or there must be a government in it that will guaranteedly join the “customs union,” and then join the new USSR being created by Putin, the “Eurasian union.” And then Putin will calm down for some time.
Putin’s error is that he considers the current Ukrainian government and the Maidan to be one and the same phenomenon, and moreover one inspired from outside. He intends to wage war against the government, or influence it in some other way, and is confident that this will automatically solve all his problems with the Maidan. Can he succeed?
To answer this question, one must immediately separate “war” from “military operations.” Victory in military operations is a matter of superiority in armament, numbers, and troop training, that is, a purely specialized, tactical matter. Victory in war, on the contrary, is a strategic matter and even a matter of culture, for it has happened time and again that military operations that seemed lost suddenly turned into victory. Moreover, it has regularly happened that the “victors” found themselves adopting the culture of the defeated, switching to their language, and even adopting their self-designation, that is, having won in military operations, these people lost the war.
In the most general case, in war, victory belongs to the one who has more incentives to preserve their way of life. And in those cases when the “invaders” simply dissolved among the “conquered,” more civilized peoples, and in those cases when the “civilized” peoples could not subdue the “wild” tribes, it was a matter of the same thing, the preference of one’s own way of life over a foreign one.
It is clear that I am saying all this in application to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. In our case, in this war as well, victory will belong to the one who finds their own way of life more preferable than the foreign one.
Currently, these ways of life are emerging very vividly and clearly. On the Russian side, this is statism in its most extreme form, the mythology of “history,” “peoples,” and similar simulacra, and, as a consequence, complete subordination of the individual to the state. Ukrainians perceive Putin’s threat not as a threat to certain abstractions in the form of “state sovereignty,” but as interference in their personal life and personal plans, blackmail, threat of murder, in general, as a threat to their life and freedom. They, in principle, have no reason to enter into pseudo-historical and pseudo-legal discussions; they do not perceive the very fact of interference in what they consider their own.
That is, these two “ways of life,” two ideologies, actually do not intersect in content. This is a very important and winning moment for us. What this means is that a Ukrainian will evaluate Putin’s offer not from the standpoint of abstract accession to the grandeur of the empire, or “choice between civilizations,” but from the standpoint of “a shcho meni z togo bude” (what will I get from this). And here Putin has absolutely nothing to offer.
In our situation, the government that Putin has set out to fight can greatly help itself by helping the “Maidan,” because it is precisely the “Maidan,” that is, the representations of society, that ensures victory in war and even in military operations. For this, the government should simply continue the work that was begun by people who came out last autumn.
We are talking about a sharp reduction of interference in the lives of Ukrainians, that is, about the government returning a significant part of power to the people.
People must see that in Ukraine they will be able to freely earn a living and provide for their loved ones, and will be able to defend themselves.
It is clear that within the framework of a column it is impossible to describe in detail the specific changes; I will focus on the main ones. Let’s start with earning. It is necessary to eliminate all “inspecting bodies,” all criminal articles for “economic crimes.” The Constitution needs to be supplemented with two articles. The first: “Bud’-yaka nenasyl’nits’ka diyal’nist’ zakonna” (Any nonviolent activity is lawful). This article limits regulation at the very foundation—no “legalization” is needed if no one suffers from the activity. Regulation is reduced to compensation for damage in specific cases and similar civil law practice.
The second article: “Kozhen maye pravo vil’no ukladaty kontrakty z inshymy osobamy ta ustanovamy ta vyznachaty arbitra u spravakh kontraktu. Kozhen maye pravo zvertatysya do vyznachenoho kontraktom arbitra chy do derzhavnoho sudu, yakshcho tse peredbacheno umovamy kontraktu, u razi pidozry na nevidpovidnist’ diyi kontrahenta umovam kontraktu” (Everyone has the right to freely enter into contracts with other persons and institutions and to determine an arbitrator in contract matters. Everyone has the right to apply to the arbitrator determined by the contract or to a state court, if provided for by the terms of the contract, in case of suspicion of non-compliance of the counterparty’s actions with the terms of the contract). This article moves people’s activity from the framework set by “law,” or worse, “sub-legal acts,” into the framework of voluntary contracts. Moreover, it establishes voluntary jurisdiction within the contract and creates conditions for competition with state courts.
In principle, these two amendments create conditions for economic freedom and the elimination of a huge array of “normative acts” and the aggression associated with them on the part of the state.
Security is the other part of the same problem of freedom. By the way, all the uncertainty about property rights, which they have been talking about with unceasing enthusiasm for 20 years, arises from the impossibility of its protection. Impossibility, first of all, at the most basic level, protection of oneself, one’s loved ones, and one’s home. Open cadastres and other popular delights are unrealistic as long as order has not been established here.
Currently, Ukrainians are defenseless, because they have been disarmed. Worse, the state forbids them to defend themselves. The right to defend oneself has been abolished by “necessary self-defense measures,” which are established post factum. Moreover, they are established by the interested party, the state. The state is interested in you not defending yourself, because it itself is based on violence and does not need people capable of repelling an aggressor.
The process of guaranteeing property rights can be started with such an amendment: “Kozhna lyudyna vid narodzhennya volodiye ta rozporyadzhayet’sya svoyim tílom ta inshoyu vlasnistyu, nabutoyu u nenasyl’nyts’kyy sposib. Tse pravo ye pryrodnym, vono ne vstanovlyuyet’sya zakonamy ta inshymy pryspysamy” (Every person from birth possesses and disposes of their body and other property acquired through nonviolent means. This right is natural; it is not established by laws and other regulations).
“Zazihannya na vlasnist’ ye protypravnym vchynkom. Kozhen maye pravo davaty vidsich takym zazihannyam u bud’-yakyy dostupnyy dlya nyoho sposib. Kozhen maye pravo zakhyshchaty sebe, svoikh blyz’kykh ta rodchyniv. Kozhen, khto ne vyznany v sudovomu poryadku nediyespramozhnym, maye pravo volodity zbroyeyu ta nosyty zbroyu” (Encroachment on property is an unlawful act. Everyone has the right to repel such encroachments in any manner available to them. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and relatives. Everyone who has not been recognized by court order as incapacitated has the right to own and carry weapons).