Chen Airu: An Analysis of Ukraine's Thirty Years of Capitalization
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has once again made Ukraine a focal point of concern for the international community. More than 30 years ago, upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine and Russia declared themselves independent sovereign states. Immediately following independence, Ukraine abandoned socialism and initiated a process of capitalization. At that time, taking the capitalist road became the near-collective choice of the newly independent states in the former Soviet and Eastern European regions. In the perception of the national elites and the public at the time, this systemic transition would immediately transform the country into a developed nation that was "wealthy," "civilized," "democratic," and "free," much like the US-led West.
On December 1, 1991, in a referendum held to confirm the Declaration of Independence adopted on August 24, as many as 93% of the people voted in favor of independence. In the blink of an eye, more than 30 years have passed, and Ukraine has not become a "wealthy," "civilized," "democratic," or "free" developed nation. In the economic sphere, Ukraine's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has consistently failed to return to the levels seen on the eve of independence in 1991. According to the 2021 GDP per capita rankings released by the International Monetary Fund, Ukraine has become the poorest country in Europe. In the political sphere, Ukraine has experienced three "color revolutions" [1]. The result of its continuous "turn to the West" and "turn to the right" is that state power is held by politicians and oligarchs manipulated by the US-led West, while the genuine will of the Ukrainian people is ignored. In the social sphere, the chasm of social polarization in Ukraine continues to widen: on one hand, the 50 wealthiest families control approximately 85% of Ukraine's GDP; on the other hand, the living standards of the Ukrainian people have failed to improve over the long term, and national debt continues to mount. In just over 30 years, Ukraine has transformed from a major industrial power in Europe into Europe's poorest country. "Using history as a mirror, one can understand the rise and fall [of states]." Analyzing the changes and outcomes of Ukraine's capitalization over the past 30-plus years can provide beneficial insights for remaining grounded in one's own national conditions and persisting in an independent path of development.
I. Dependent Capitalism Failed to Bring Economic Development to Ukraine
During more than 30 years of following the capitalist road, the keywords of the Ukrainian economy have been "poverty, deindustrialization, and debt." The Ukrainian "economic structure shifted from mechanical manufacturing to agricultural production," and "stagnation and recession became the norm for economic growth." What caused the severe decoupling between Ukraine's ideal of seeking economic development and its reality? What are the deep-seated reasons for this state of the Ukrainian economy? These are the answers we seek in studying the changes and outcomes of Ukraine's 30-year transition. Lenin once pointed out: "In examining any process of development of a social phenomenon, one will always find in it traces of the past, the foundations of the present, and the germs of the future."
Ukraine's turn toward the capitalist road caused it to lose its status as an economic "top student" from the Soviet era. At the start of independence, Ukraine’s comprehensive national strength was second only to Russia’s among the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries. However, after more than 30 years on the capitalist road, the hospitable Ukraine—formerly the "breadbasket of the Soviet Union" and one of the top ten advanced countries in Europe during the Soviet period—has become a "Third World" nation divided for various reasons. Through indicators such as economic development levels, national wealth status, and population growth indices, we can see that Ukraine’s systemic transition followed the path of "peripheral capitalism" argued by American scholar Immanuel Wallerstein in The Modern World-System—that is, the path of "dependent capitalism." Following the path of "dependent capitalism" predetermines that economic policy cannot be grounded in the interests of one's own country and nation, which in turn predetermined that Ukraine would not choose an independent path of economic development.
Over the 30-plus years of Ukraine's capitalization, economic development has shown no results. Ukrainian sociologist A. A. Beryenok believes that "it is precisely the restoration of capitalism that destroyed the national economy; the capitalist restoration brought harm to tens of millions of Ukrainians, and its roots and consequences are clearly visible." This is because "the restoration of capitalism in Ukraine led to the state's primary wealth being held in the hands of a few nouveaux riches, while the working people are subject to these individuals. A minority has illegally monopolized the new opportunities provided by the market, while the vast majority has been marginalized. The well-being of the majority has never reached Soviet-era levels." It is evident that "the primary, top-ranked cause of Ukraine's economic decline is the shock therapy, predatory voucher privatization, and mass impoverishment brought about by nascent capitalism after 1991."
Ukraine's economic development data confirms A. A. Beryenok’s view. Since independence, Ukraine's GDP has never recovered to 1991 levels. Through Table 1, we can see the changes in Ukraine's GDP from 1991 to 2020. Between 1991 and 1993, Ukraine's GDP declined at a rate of approximately 10% per year. Between 1994 and 2003, Ukraine's GDP essentially hovered at 50% of its 1990 level. From 2004 to 2020, even the year with the highest GDP was only 74.2% of the 1990 level.
After more than 30 years of capitalization, Ukraine's national wealth has continually shrunk, the people live in hardship, and the gap between rich and poor continues to widen. Ukraine is the largest and most populous country in Europe besides Russia, yet it has now become the poorest country on the European continent. In 2020, Ukraine's GDP was $142 billion, with a GDP per capita of $3,400. Although successive Ukrainian governments have continually promised the public that by introducing Western social systems, they could enjoy a wealthy life identical to that of people in developed Western countries—that they would "live like Europeans"—this promise has drifted further and further away from the reality of the Ukrainian people's lives. A study conducted by the State Statistics Service of Ukraine in August 2020 showed that 65.3% of Ukrainians considered themselves poor, and 33.6% could not determine whether they were poor or middle class. According to data from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), only 1.1% of Ukrainians consider themselves middle class. In 2020, 60% of Ukrainians lived below the poverty line; before the "Maidan Incident" [2] (the Ukrainian "color revolution" from November 2013 to February 2014), only 20% of Ukrainians lived below the poverty line. The poverty rate among Ukraine's working population is 42.4%, meaning almost one in two workers cannot provide a decent life for themselves and their families. Meanwhile, the total wealth of Ukraine's 100 wealthiest citizens grew by 42% to reach $44.5 billion. In 2013, the family wealth of the 50 richest families accounted for approximately 85% of Ukraine's GDP.
During the 30-plus years of capitalization, Ukraine's population has shown a trend of continuous contraction. Ukraine's total population has shrunk from 52 million during the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic period in 1991 to less than 34 million in 2021. According to estimates by Ukrainian scholar M.V. Kostinsky, "During the peaceful development years of 1991–2014, Ukraine's population decreased by 10 million (during the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic period, over the same length of time, the population increased by 10 million)." There are two reasons. First, poverty, deteriorating medical conditions, and uncertainty about the future have led to a decrease in life expectancy for Ukrainians. "One in ten Ukrainians does not live past 35, and one in two does not live past 60. In 2020, the number of deaths significantly exceeded the number of births, with 293,457 births and 616,835 deaths; the number of births was only half the number of deaths." Second, emigration has brought population loss to Ukraine. Unable to support themselves and their families or realize their personal value in their homeland, many Ukrainians go abroad to make a living. "Of Ukraine's 15 million economically active population, 8 million are employed abroad. 80% of young people favor migration. In fact, the elderly receive no support from the state, and their living standards are below the minimum subsistence level. 77% of retirees receive monthly incomes lower than the amount required to maintain the minimum subsistence level."
Since independence, alongside population contraction and the outflow of labor resources, Ukraine has lost development opportunities. Post-independence Ukraine inherited vast resources and excellent starting conditions from the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic but failed to utilize them well. Ukraine did not establish a developed market economy; economic development has been weak, human potential remains untapped, and people's living standards are low. Even Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal admitted: "Because incomplete reforms have constantly changed direction, and due to the lack of a long-term economic development strategy, corruption, and inefficient management, all citizens of Ukraine have lost $1 trillion in GDP." This is why unbiased analysts are forced to admit that "Ukraine failed to maintain the image and potential it possessed upon entering the post-Soviet era in the 1990s and failed to become a successful post-Soviet modernized country."
II. Three "Color Revolutions" Pushed Ukraine to Continually "Turn to the Right"
From independence to the present, Ukraine has undergone three "color revolutions." These have pushed Ukraine to continually "turn to the right," manifested politically as being "at the beck and call" of the US-led West. The reason for saying Ukraine has experienced three "color revolutions" is that the three regime changes Ukraine underwent all conformed to the "color revolution" script designed by the United States, were carried out according to this script, and achieved the results desired by the US, as confirmed by relevant declassified US archives.
1. The "Velvet Revolution" boosted the upheavals in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union
Ukrainian independence was a consequence of the "color revolutions" promoted by the US Central Intelligence Agency (hereafter "CIA") in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Before events reached the stage of the Eastern European upheavals and the Soviet dissolution, the US had already invested large sums of money to conduct ideological penetration in the region through various means. The Eastern European upheavals and the Soviet dissolution are another classic case of the US CIA’s successful use of "color revolutions" to suppress communist ideology.
Today, the concept of "color revolutions," their modes of operation, and their expected consequences are no longer unfamiliar to various sectors of society. From politicians to scholars and even ordinary citizens, everyone knows a bit about "color revolutions." However, at the time of the Eastern European upheavals and the Soviet dissolution, "color revolutions" were still shrouded in mystery. Earlier still, they were even less known. This is also the "ace soft power" that the US used skillfully to suppress socialist and communist ideologies.
The United States is the progenitor of planning "color revolutions"; as of 2022, 74 years have passed since the CIA launched the first "color revolution." From its inception, the "color revolution" was used to suppress communist parties and communist ideology. According to declassified US archives, as early as 1948, the CIA first applied a "color revolution" to the Italian general election, successfully causing the Italian Communist Party to lose by launching inflammatory propaganda, funding preferred candidates, and meticulously planning grassroots movements. Openly, influence was exerted by the US State Department, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and US-funded NGOs; secretly, the CIA did the same. This was the first time the US used "color revolution" methods to implement regime subversion abroad under the banners of "democracy and freedom," and it marked the beginning of the US using non-war means to suppress communist and socialist ideologies. In the words of CIA Chief Historian David Robarge, the 1948 operation became the "template" for subsequent CIA operations in "many, many countries." On June 21, 2020, the website of the US magazine Foreign Affairs published an article titled "When the CIA Interferes in Foreign Elections," disclosing the facts of the US engaging in "color revolutions" and subverting other countries' regimes.
Another classic case of a "color revolution" was in 2000...
in 2000 to subvert the Milosevic regime in Yugoslavia. From mid-1999 to the end of 2000, the United States spent a total of approximately $40 million on Serbian projects. CIA official John Sipher stated, "We provided support to Milosevic’s opponents behind the scenes." Bill Clinton confirmed the fact that the CIA provided funding and other types of assistance to the opposition. Yet, what was presented to the world was a narrative of mass protests erupting because Milosevic cheated during the vote count, and his subsequent forced resignation due to an inability to quell the "people's revolution."
Viewed from today’s perspective, we can clearly recognize that the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union were, in fact, practical applications of the American "color revolution" script in the Soviet and Eastern European regions. Beginning in the 1980s, the CIA began joint operations with George Soros’s hedge funds, organizing so-called "Helsinki Groups" in Kyiv, Moscow, and other major Soviet cities. Their task was to organize psychological warfare and strip the Soviet system of its prestige. Under the guise of "democracy and freedom," these groups actually worked to change the nature of regimes in target countries through "color revolutions," replacing leaders with those who would be submissive to the US in order to consolidate American global hegemony. To this end, the US invested massive amounts of manpower and material resources. In 1989, the US ignited the "Velvet Revolution" [8] in Czechoslovakia, which further triggered a generalized "Velvet Revolution" across other socialist countries in the Soviet-Eastern European region. In the series of "color revolutions" from 1989 to 1991, Soviet and Eastern European socialist states one after another announced the abandonment of the socialist system and communist ideology, switching instead to Western political systems, adopting private ownership, and embracing Western liberal market economies. Through "peaceful evolution" [9] without the use of force, the US led the majority of socialist countries down the capitalist road; only five countries—China, Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, and Cuba—continued to persevere on the socialist road. By these means, the US won the "Cold War" against the Soviet Union, obtained immense geopolitical, economic, and human resource benefits, and assumed the position of global hegemon. The results of the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union demonstrate that the tasks set by the CIA were accomplished with distinction.
It was precisely during this wave of "color revolutions" that Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union, initiating a process of institutional transition and social transformation oriented toward a capitalist system.
2. Ukraine has undergone two more "color revolutions" since independence
Ukrainian independence was one of the most significant geopolitical shifts in Europe since the Second World War. "Ukraine is situated at the geopolitical center of Europe," being the only European country located at the junction of the three major blocs: the CIS, Western Europe, and Central and Eastern Europe. At the same time, influenced by various factors—history, reality, ethnicity, society, and culture—the relationship between Ukraine and Russia has always been a "very special neighborly relationship." It is no secret to anyone that "the West and international capital have always viewed Ukraine and the Ukrainian people as a tool in the struggle for geopolitical dominance, and as a means to monitor the territory, markets, and resources of the former Soviet Union and today's Russia."
After the changes in Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US saw the possibility of seeking even greater interests in the former Soviet-Eastern European region. Openly violating the promise of "no eastward expansion of NATO" made to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during the reunification of Germany, the US continuously pushed NATO’s eastward expansion. Today, NATO has expanded from 12 founding members to 30 member states.
In the process of advancing NATO’s eastward expansion, the US launched multiple "color revolutions" in the former Soviet-Eastern European region and its surrounding areas, expanding the sphere of influence of the West led by the US. The "Rose Revolution" took place in Georgia in 2003, followed by the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine in 2004. These were followed in quick succession by the "Purple Revolution" in Iraq, the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon, and the "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan. The "Jasmine Revolution" in Tunisia triggered the "Arab Spring," which subsequently played out in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria; other Arab countries were also affected to varying degrees, with large-scale demonstrations breaking out before gradually subsiding following government concessions.
Ten years after the outbreak of the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, the US launched the so-called "Revolution of Dignity" in 2014. Given that the "Orange Revolution" had already occurred in 2004, why did a "color revolution" repeat itself in Ukraine? This must be analyzed according to the evolution of Ukraine's political situation. Following the 2004 "Orange Revolution," pro-Western forces were pushed onto the Ukrainian political stage. However, the governance of the "Orange" faction saw no improvement in the country's condition. By February 2010, Viktor Yanukovych won the presidential election and assumed office. Shortly after taking power, Yanukovych implemented a series of measures to suppress pro-Western rightist forces, causing the gains of the "Orange Revolution" to vanish. Observing the political development of post-independence Ukraine reveals that the country has drifted back and forth between the West and Russia in an attempt to profit from both sides. When major economic and strategic interests are involved, the measures taken by pro-Western administrations differ starkly from those of pro-Russian administrations. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian stance led him to stall on signing the Association Agreement with the European Union, which became the fuse for the new round of "color revolution" in 2014. A.A. Belenok pointed out that since the 2004 "Orange Revolution," Ukraine had been indoctrinating its people with the idea that Europe was the model for social system building; however, the "European miracle" never appeared in Ukraine, and the "new life" brought nothing but endless suffering to the Ukrainian people.
3. Three "color revolutions" have pushed the Ukrainian regime continuously "to the right"
"Color revolutions" possess clear ideological overtones. From the first "color revolution" launched by the US against the Italian Communist Party, to the promotion of the "Velvet Revolution" against the socialist systems of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and on to the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia and the "Revolution of Dignity" in Ukraine—throughout this series of "color revolutions," the three Baltic states, Georgia, and Ukraine successively introduced "de-communization" laws. This demonstrates the distinct ideological character of these movements. Following the success of a "color revolution," the politicians pushed onto the political stage in these countries are those favored by the US, who are more inclined to maintain American interests and defend American positions during their governance.
Following the 2014 "Revolution of Dignity," Ukraine held elections for the Verkhovna Rada (the Parliament of Ukraine) in October of that year. In this election, pro-Western and nationalist parties received widespread support from voters, while ultra-nationalist parties—previously on the fringes of the Ukrainian political map—rose rapidly. The pro-Western and extremist posture of the newly installed Ukrainian authorities met with resistance from the population in southern and eastern Ukraine, where ethnic Russians constitute the majority. The direct consequence was Crimea’s incorporation into Russia through a "referendum," and the declaration of independent People's Republics in Donetsk and Luhansk. In this situation, the Ukrainian authorities refused to recognize the self-declared independence of Donetsk and Luhansk and dispatched government troops to eastern Ukraine to suppress the "rebellion," plunging Ukraine into a state of civil war.
Regarding the regime that came to power through the "Revolution of Dignity," the Communist Party of Ukraine assessed it thus: "The most reactionary right-wing populist forces and pro-Western comprador forces, for their own benefit, exploited public discontent. Using pseudo-democratic rhetoric and slogans like 'prioritizing the European choice,' they successfully subordinated the resistance movement to their struggle for power and to the interests of the West—primarily US monopoly capital—giving the movement an anti-Russian character." To achieve this goal, the US spent massive sums of money, reaching a staggering $5 billion by 2014. In the report to its 49th Congress, the Communist Party of Ukraine pointed out that in order to implement the "Revolution of Dignity," and in accordance with the conventions of "color revolutions," the US had pre-trained thousands of militants equipped with sophisticated weapons both inside and outside Ukraine. Long before the tragic events on the squares and streets of Kyiv in 2014, the US began researching how to transport "protesters" to the capital, where they would stay, what they would eat, how medical services would be resolved, how to ensure the orderly deployment of militants, the delivery of tires for burning, the preparation of "Molotov cocktails," and so on. Therefore, the crisis that broke out in Ukraine in early 2014 was by no means a "spontaneous" event. The "Maidan" assemblies in Kyiv and elsewhere cultivated and gathered "Hundreds" [10] and "Battalions" of thugs—in reality, private armies. They took orders from oligarchs or the opposition within government agencies and were used to brutally suppress people's voices and their dissatisfaction with anti-people government policies. On the surface, the "Maidan" appeared to be a unique institution of civil society; in reality, it was the worst form of manipulated mob politics. This so-called "power of the masses" was actually a situation where a large crowd was utilized by oligarchs and politicians for selfish ends, diverting attention from pressing problems and making life unbearable for the people.
The Ukrainian authorities, having ascended the political stage through "color revolutions," have continuously "turned to the right," leading to a strange phenomenon in Ukraine: political posturing takes precedence over attention to economic development and people's livelihoods. The result was first a state where people could hardly survive, followed by a slide into civil war, and eventually the Russia-Ukraine conflict. This warns us that regimes coming to power through "color revolutions" are usually comprador regimes, and the extremist policies implemented by comprador regimes are detrimental to national development. Furthermore, both far-right and "far-left" policies are harmful to a country's development; to seek development, a national regime must avoid extremism.
In 2014, after the new Ukrainian government took power, it implemented crackdowns and suppression of citizens based on ethnic composition. This behavior was the most fundamental reason for pushing Ukraine toward division, civil war, and further into the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Whether ethnic Russians, ethnic Ukrainians, or other ethnicities, all should be citizens of Ukraine with equal rights and status; however, the new Ukrainian government failed to govern from the moral high ground. The ultra-right policies of the Ukrainian authorities led to the country’s division, civil war, and the current conflict, causing the nation to miss golden opportunities for development and even turning the country into a theater for great power competition, leaving its own people to suffer the bitter consequences of national ruin and displacement.
III. The ignored public opinion during 30 years of Ukrainian capitalization
Since independence, Ukraine's socio-economic model has been extremely unfair to the vast majority of citizens in terms of national income distribution. A prominent feature of Ukraine's 30-plus years of independence is the drastic intensification of inequality between the wealthy/super-wealthy and the rest of the population, especially the poor. "In Scandinavian countries, the average income of the wealthiest 1% is 8 times that of the poorest 50%; in Europe, it is nearly 13 times; in the US, 25 times; in Ukraine, it reached nearly 46 times; and in Kyiv, it is as high as 96 times." Years of social survey data show that a large proportion of the Ukrainian general public expresses opposition to the capitalist system, to the privatization of large enterprises, and to the privatization of land, preferring instead that the state implement mixed economic policies. Unfortunately, the voice of the people has been consistently ignored.
Regarding the question of Ukraine's national independence after its departure from the Soviet Union: through a public opinion poll by the Ukrainian Center for Social Indicators, we can catch a glimpse of the Ukrainian public's stance and mentality toward national independence. 66.5% of Ukrainian citizens believe that Ukraine is not a truly independent country. Respondents identified the external forces with maternal influence on Ukraine as the International Monetary Fund (45.2%), the United States (40%), and the European Union (39.4%). 73.2% of respondents believed that Ukraine is moving in the wrong historical direction.
Regarding the attitude of the Ukrainian public toward the country's choice between the capitalist road or the socialist road: Table 3 shows that between 1994 and 2016, the proportion of Ukrainian citizens supporting the capitalist road ranged between 8.9% and 17.1%, never exceeding one-fifth. It is evident that public support for Ukraine's turn toward capitalism is relatively low, which is consistent with the reality that the vast majority of the people have felt no sense of gain [11] from the country’s development following the transition.
Regarding the issue of privatization, the Ukrainian populace holds distinct attitudes. As observed in Table 4, public sentiment toward the privatization of small enterprises stands in sharp contrast to that concerning large enterprises; the proportion of citizens favoring the privatization of small enterprises has consistently remained higher than those opposing it. In 2020, the proportion of citizens in favor of small enterprise privatization was 49.7%, while those opposed accounted for 28.6%. It is true, however, that compared to the 1990s, the number of supporters for small enterprise privatization is decreasing while the number of opponents is increasing. These data prove that since Ukrainian independence, there has been a continuous upward trend in the number of citizens who do not accept privatization. Latest data also show that after discarding the illusions of the 1990s, the Ukrainian public has, since around 2005, consistently opposed the privatization of Ukraine's primary strategic resource—land. The rift between proponents and opponents of the land privatization system has narrowed somewhat, which stands in direct contradiction to the contents of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Memorandum of Cooperation. That memorandum set a "task" for Ukraine to accelerate the liberalization of the land market, including agricultural land. Ukrainian society exhibits negative attitudes toward the privatization of large enterprises, small enterprises, and land alike, with the negative sentiment toward the privatization of large enterprises being the most intense. Regarding the privatization of large enterprises, the proportion of the Ukrainian public opposing it climbed to a high point around 2005; for instance, in 2006, two-thirds of respondents opposed the privatization of large enterprises, while only one-tenth approved. Since then, the number of opponents of large enterprise privatization has decreased slightly, while the number of supporters has nearly doubled. In the 1990s, Ukraine's large-scale privatization deviated from Ukraine's national interests. In the thirty-plus years since independence, the working people of Ukraine have been unable to restrain the greed of the oligarchs and financial magnates. These magnates did not invest their income into national stability funds or returns on labor savings, but instead spent it on luxury goods and consumption, or invested it in real estate and seaside offshore regions. Consequently, the Ukrainian public has begun to identify more strongly with the idea of nationalizing large enterprises.
Regarding the role of the state in managing the economy, a majority of the Ukrainian public supports a mixed economy—that is, a model combining planning and the market. This reached its peak in 2016 at 51.4%, though the number of people voting for a mixed economic system decreased slightly in 2020 (see Table 5). Ranking second are the proponents of total nationalization of the economy and a return to a comprehensive planned economy, reaching a peak of 33.4% in 2012; however, their numbers are far from reaching the level that could prompt the restoration of an administrative-command [12] socialist model. Proponents of "the market decides everything" have consistently remained a distinct minority, peaking in 2017 but reaching only 14.2%. The Ukrainian public does not entirely favor a liberal economy with minimal state intervention, which serves as further evidence of the Ukrainian public's rejection of the capitalist economic system.
In response to the question "How fair is the society in which you live?", 20.6% of respondents believe the current society is one where fairness is completely non-existent, and 31.2% believe it is very unfair. This means that approximately half of the Ukrainian public (51.8%) considers their society to be unfair. More than one-third of respondents (37.5%) hold a middle-ground position, which can be interpreted as believing that the society they live in is unfair in some respects and fair in others. Only 10.7% of Ukrainian citizens believe Ukrainian society is fair, representing a clear minority.
Whether the national economic system serves the wealthy or the broad masses, along with the evaluation of the justice of the various socio-economic systems already formed in Ukraine, has led the Ukrainian public to form a perception of Ukrainian society as an unequal one. According to social survey data from the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the vast majority of respondents (71.3%) believe that Ukraine's economic system serves only the wealthy, while only 10.8% believe it serves the vast majority of Ukrainians; 17.9% of respondents were unable to provide an answer to this question.
Through the above investigation and analysis, we can reach a basic conclusion: the thirty-plus years of Ukraine's capitalization have been thirty years in which Ukrainian oligarchs and large capitalist groups obtained actual interests, while the broadest masses of the people lost a prosperous and powerful state, lost the peace and stability of daily life, and lost their expectations for the country's future. This serves as a warning to us: if a country's political power is seized by oligarchs and large capitalist groups, it is fated that national interests and the interests of the people will not become the core elements of consideration.