Towards the Abyss: Ukraine from Maidan to War - Volodymyr Ishchenko
Published in 2024 by Verso, London, UK and New York, NY
192 pages
ISBN: 9781804295540
On February 24, 2022, Russian military forces invaded the nation of Ukraine. In his television address two days prior, Russian President Vladimir Putin justified the oncoming invasion by claiming that two regions of Ukraine (namely, Donetsk and Luhansk) were sovereign states independent from the Ukrainian government. This was a drastic escalation of tensions, which had been bubbling underneath the surface since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, as Putin sent troops to support pro-Russian separatists who had been fighting in these regions of eastern Ukraine.
In the three years since, Ukrainian troops have consistently fought against the waves of Russian forces who have attempted to overtake the cities of Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Mariupol. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced since the war, which has now stagnated into a seemingly endless stalemate. While millions of dollars have been sent to aid Ukraine in both humanitarian and military capacities, NATO has tried to walk a fine line, levying heavy sanctions against Russia instead of directly intervening with military forces.
How did Ukraine reach this point? What are the roots of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine? What are the internal political and social divisions within Ukraine that have led to this current moment? In his 2024 book, Towards the Abyss: Ukraine from Maidan to War, Ukrainian sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko offers a critical analysis of Ukraine’s political, social, and economic journey, particularly in relation to its struggle to align with the European Union and the broader West. Ishchenko examines the complexities of Ukrainian society, challenging dominant narratives and highlighting the internal divisions and external pressures that have shaped the nation's trajectory. He argues, “Rather than essentializing ethnolinguistic differences or regional political cultures, to understand Ukrainian political cleavages we should think about the dynamics of class and social revolution” (xv).
Overview:
Ishchenko provides a comprehensive analysis of the political, social, and economic transformations in Ukraine during the critical period between the 2014 Maidan protests and the outbreak of war with Russia. The book is organized into two major sections: 1) a collection of post-Maidan essays written around 2014, and 2) a collection of 2022 essays focusing on the events of the Russian invasion. A central theme is that Ukraine has faced a kind of "geopolitical trap,” caught between the competing interests of Russia and the European Union. Ishchenko analyzes the conflicting aspirations within Ukrainian society, with some factions leaning toward a European future, while others, especially in the Russian-speaking east and south, have historically aligned more with Moscow.
The book also critiques the failures of both Ukrainian elites and international actors in achieving meaningful progress toward a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine. Ishchenko argues that the promise of EU integration has often been elusive and that Ukraine’s struggle to move towards Europe is not just about external factors like Russian aggression, but also about internal weaknesses, including corruption, oligarchy, and political fragmentation.
Ishchenko focuses on the period after Ukraine gained independence in 1991, outlining the complexities of the country's development and its repeated cycles of political crisis. The book provides an in-depth exploration of key events, such as the Orange Revolution (2004) and the Maidan protests (2013-2014), which were driven by a desire for closer ties with Europe but also exposed deep divisions within the country over issues like nationalism, corruption, and economic inequality.
He also highlights the events of the Maidan Revolution, which led to the ousting of President Yanukovych, and the subsequent challenges that Ukraine faced in transitioning from a post-Soviet state to a more democratic and cohesive nation. Ishchenko argues that while the Maidan was initially a pro-European, democratic uprising, it became entangled in the competing visions of Ukraine’s identity and future direction. These competing forces, from pro-European liberalism to a growing, powerful nationalist movement, created tensions that contributed to the political and military struggles that followed.
Ishchenko also analyzes the annexation of Crimea by Russia and the war in Eastern Ukraine in-depth, looking at how the conflict was shaped by both internal divisions within Ukraine and external pressures, particularly from Russia. He argues that the war was not just a result of Russian aggression but also a product of Ukraine's internal fractures, including the failure to build a cohesive national identity and address issues of regionalism, corruption, and economic inequality.
Ishchenko posits that the post-Soviet transformation in Ukraine has not led to modernization but rather to a process of de-modernization. He describes this as a "post-Soviet vicious circle," where oligarchic elites hinder democratic development and economic progress, perpetuating a cycle of decline rather than advancement. Ishchenko utilizes the concept of "political capitalists" to describe a class of oligarchs who derive their power not from competitive markets but from state patronage and selective benefits. This class structure, according to Ishchenko, has entrenched inequality and stifled genuine democratic engagement, as the ruling elite's interests are closely tied to state control and manipulation.
Overall, Ishchenko critiques both Russian and Western imperialism. Ishchenko argues that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a response to its declining geopolitical influence and internal crises. Similarly, he critiques Western involvement, suggesting that NATO's expansion and Western support for Ukrainian nationalism have exacerbated tensions without addressing the underlying issues of imperialism and class struggle.
Deeper Dive:
In the Preface, Ishchenko opens with a personal essay detailing his experiences as a leftist intellectual in Ukraine. He reflects on the challenges of being labeled a "wrong Ukrainian" for his critical stance on nationalism and imperialism, which has earned him ire from both his home and abroad. He contends that the prevailing Western and Ukrainian elite narratives often marginalize dissenting voices, particularly those from the Russian-speaking, pro-left populations in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine.
He argues that these groups have been sidelined in favor of a monolithic national identity that aligns with Western liberalism and nationalism, leading to the suppression of alternative political perspectives. Ishchenko left Ukraine for Germany in 2019, writing that over the past two decades in Kyiv, “there was no rational engagement, only denial, silence, rejection, cancelling. One could write a thousand words against Russian imperialism and yet still be called a ‘troubadour of the empire.’ One could literally say ‘I hate Putin’ and still be accused of spreading Russian propaganda” (xxiv). As such, Ishchenko highlights the challenges faced by left-wing activists and intellectuals in Ukraine, noting a climate of repression and marginalization.
Chapter One examines the Euromaidan protests that erupted in late 2013 and led to the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych in early 2014. He argues that they were not solely about European integration but also reflected deeper issues within Ukrainian society. Ishchenko discusses the key causes of the protests, including frustration with corruption, authoritarianism, and the president's decision to reject an association agreement with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia. He emphasizes the role of civil society, the emergence of different political movements, and the symbolic importance of Maidan Square as a space for collective resistance while also discussing the role of various social groups in the protests and the underlying class dynamics that influenced the movement. Ishchenko also reflects on the internal divisions within Ukrainian society, particularly between pro-European Western Ukraine and pro-Russian Eastern and Southern regions. He argues that the Maidan uprising, while initially a pro-democratic, pro-European movement, exposed deeper societal fractures that would shape the political trajectory of the country in the years that followed.
In Chapter Two, Ishchenko critiques the dominant narratives surrounding the Maidan revolution, suggesting that these "mythologies" oversimplify the complex realities of the protests. He primarily takes Andrew Wilson to task by critiquing his 2014 book, Ukraine’s Crisis: What it Means for the West, arguing that it marks a shift for Wilson from “historian to foreign-policy agitator” (26). Systematically debunking Wilson’s claims, Ishchenko argues that “Wilson’s ideological boilerplate merely serves to legitimate imperialism interests and pro-war mobilization in a time of sharpened inter-state rivalry” (35).
Along the way during his scathing critique, Ishchenko also critically examines the challenges posed by nationalism in a multi-ethnic society, particularly in the context of Ukraine’s diverse regional identities. He explores the resurgence of nationalism in Ukraine after the Maidan Revolution and discusses the role of nationalist groups, particularly the Right Sector, and other far-right organizations, which played an active role in the protests and later became part of the Ukrainian military during the conflict with Russia. He argues that the rise of nationalism in post-Maidan Ukraine had significant implications for the country’s unity and its ability to form a cohesive national identity that could bridge the gaps between Eastern and Western Ukraine.
The Third Chapter focuses on the rise of Volodymyr Zelensky, a comedian who became president of Ukraine. He discusses the political and economic challenges that Ukraine faced after the fall of Yanukovych, highlighting the country’s economic struggles, including the impact of the 2014 Crimean annexation by Russia and the outbreak of conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Ishchenko details the deepening financial crises, rising inflation, and the challenges posed by corruption, which had been persistent in Ukrainian politics for decades.
Ishchenko argues that the political elite's inability to address these economic and structural problems contributed to Ukraine’s instability. He discusses the role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Western institutions, which imposed austerity measures as part of their assistance to Ukraine, and how these measures were deeply unpopular with many Ukrainians, particularly in the industrial East and South. As such, this discontent led to the rise of Zelensky as a protest candidate against Poroshenko and an outsider who promised to bring change. Ishchenko analyzes Zelensky's political ascent and the public's expectations of him, questioning whether his outsider status can lead to meaningful change in a system entrenched with oligarchic interests.
In Chapter Four, Ishchenko draws comparisons between Ukraine and the disputed 2020 election in Belarus between Lukashenka and Tsikhanouskaia. By examining the similarities and differences in these political developments in both Ukraine and Belarus, Ischenko argues that the same class conflicts were present in Belarus as they were in Ukraine. Though he readily recognizes that the extent of Russian support was fully clear to him as he wrote these initial reflections in the days following the protests, he accurately predicts the fizzling out of the protests, especially with the lack of any radical vanguard.
Chapter Five finds Ischenko co-authoring with Oleg Zhuravlev as they present a Gramscian analysis of what they call the “post-Soviet condition.” The authors argue that Ukraine is trapped in a "vicious circle" of political and economic decline, where oligarchic elites maintain power through patronage networks, hindering democratic development and modernization. While the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the formation of authoritarian regimes, several post-Soviet nations such as Ukraine have continually experienced uprisings that fiddle with the machinations of the state without ever transforming or fully democratizing it.
As such, they argue that the Maidan protests “have been deficient solutions to very real problems of political representation,” resulting in “a shift in the balance of power between competing ‘oligarchic clans’ rather than their overthrow” (61, 62). To overcome this crisis of hegemony, they hope that the existential threat from transnational capitalists would force the post-Soviet ruling class to unite, articulate, and pursue their interests and the interests of the subaltern classes, which could open up further space for counter-hegemony from below (63).
In Chapter Six, Ishchenko outlines three potential scenarios for the Ukraine-Russia conflict, analyzing the geopolitical and internal factors that could influence the outcome. The first potential scenario is that Russia is utterly defeated and humiliated, which is the hope of many Ukrainian nationalists, despite the dangers of the disintegration of a nuclear world power. The second scenario is the “Finlandization” of Ukraine by committing itself to neutrality by not joining NATO, but also remaining close to the West. The third option would be to construct “an overarching security structure for the whole of Europe that would include both Ukraine and Russia” (69). He discusses the implications of each scenario for Ukraine's sovereignty and the broader regional stability.
Chapter Seven examines Ukrainian public opinion on NATO membership. Despite Western media often claiming that Ukrainians overwhelmingly want to join NATO and establish closer ties to the West, the data reveals that the wider opinion in Ukraine has been inconsistent and often regionally divided. The events of the Maidan, the annexation of Crimea, and the conflicts in Donbas in 2014/15 sparked the growth in support for joining NATO. Even still, on the eve of the Russian invasion in 2021, just under half of Ukrainians supported non-alignment.
Ishchenko critiques the assumption that NATO expansion aligns with the desires of the Ukrainian people, highlighting the complexities of national identity and geopolitical aspirations, especially among the Ukrainian working-class population in the East and South. He also explores the role of international actors, such as the European Union, the United States, and NATO, in shaping Ukraine’s future. He argues that while Western support was crucial, it was not always aligned with Ukraine’s needs and was often conditioned by Western interests, leading to tensions between Ukraine’s aspirations and the realities of international politics.
In Chapter Eight, Ishchenko delves into the underlying class dynamics that have contributed to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. He argues that the war is not merely a result of geopolitical rivalry but also stems from deep-seated class conflicts within the post-Soviet space, where oligarchic elites have perpetuated systems of exploitation and inequality. Rather than relying solely on the crutch of “imperialism” as an explanation for Russia’s actions, he instead focuses on the material interests of the Russian ruling class to “move beyond flimsy explanations that take rulers’ claims at face value and move towards a more coherent picture of how the war is rooted in the economic and political vacuum opened up by the Soviet collapse in 1991” (96).
Ischenko argues that the Russian government has developed into a form of military Keynesianism while also fostering a right-wing nationalist sentiment that seeks to restore Russia to its status as a Great Power. The restructuring of the multipolar world order, he argues, is a key factor in Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine, as it continues the post-Soviet consolidation that Putin began in the early 2000s. Following the thought of Dylan Riley, Ischenko argues that this increasing hegemonic power from above can spark greater counter-hegemonic forces arising from below.
In the final chapter, Ishchenko critiques the dominant narratives of Ukrainian identity and resistance, questioning whose voices are amplified and whose are marginalized. He calls for a more inclusive understanding of Ukrainian society that recognizes the diversity of experiences and perspectives within the country. He decries the use of words such as “decolonization” by reactionary nationalists to mask their attempts to erase any trace of Russian influence on Ukrainian culture. Ishchenko claims that these attempts are merely symbolic gestures that are wholly decoupled from actual social and political transformation. These nationalist identity politics that have engulfed Ukraine, he argues, essentialize Ukrainian history and identity while wholly embracing Western imperialism.
The book concludes with an interview where Ishchenko reflects on the themes discussed throughout the chapters, offering further insights into his analysis of Ukraine's political and social landscape. Originally published in the New Left Review in 2022, this interview covers topics such as Russia’s invasion, the floundering populism of Zelensky, and Ishchenko's solemn lamentations over forever losing the Ukraine of his youth. Ishchenko concludes that while the Maidan Revolution initially brought hope for a better, more democratic future, the country’s trajectory is still uncertain in the wake of further disappointment and conflict within the region. The deep divisions within Ukraine, along with external pressures from Russia, make the road to a unified, stable, and prosperous Ukraine a challenging one.
Commendations:
There are several notable strengths to Ishchenko’s account. As with any account of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine, careful attention must be paid to its theoretical framing, empirical contributions, and political implications, particularly in the context of contemporary global capitalism, imperial contestation, and nationalist mobilization. Given all of these factors, Ishchenko’s account is bold, necessary, and deeply controversial within both Western liberal and post-Soviet nationalist discourses.
One of the book’s strongest contributions is its application of class analysis to the Ukrainian crisis, moving beyond the overly moralized and binary interpretations often found in Western media and policy circles. Ishchenko frames the post-Soviet transformation not as a linear path toward liberal democracy but as a process of de-modernization and entrenchment of political capitalism, where oligarchs maintain their power through state patronage and coercive political structures. By applying a Gramscian framework to the post-Soviet condition, Ishchenko illuminates new dimensions of a context often obscured by Cold War revanchism and geopolitical abstraction.
I deeply appreciated Ishchenko’s focus on the economic struggles faced by Ukraine post-Maidan. He offers a critical view of the neoliberal economic policies that have been imposed by the West through institutions like the IMF and the European Union, pointing out their negative effects on ordinary Ukrainians. His analysis of the austerity measures, privatization, and deepening social inequality resonates with a left-wing critique of global capitalism, showing how Ukraine’s integration into the global capitalist order exacerbated the suffering of the working class. This is a necessary discussion in understanding how economic policies and the financial elite have shaped the political landscape and undermined the potential for true democratic reform.
Likewise, Ishchenko is acutely critical and skeptical of the dominant national-liberal discourse that frames Euromaidan as an unequivocal “revolution of dignity.” He exposes how this narrative has excluded vast swaths of the population from the imagined national community, particularly working-class, Russian-speaking, and eastern Ukrainians. This ideological critique is important for understanding the exclusionary dynamics of nationalism, even in so-called progressive revolutions.
Ishchenko provides an in-depth analysis of Ukraine's internal divisions, particularly the sharp divide between the pro-European West and the pro-Russian East. He does a commendable job of highlighting how the Maidan Revolution, although initially driven by democratic aspirations, also reflected deep-seated regional, linguistic, and cultural fractures. This critique is essential as it challenges the simplistic narrative that the Maidan was a monolithic, purely democratic uprising. Ishchenko’s nuanced exploration of the rise of nationalism and its implications for social cohesion is valuable in understanding the broader political dynamics in Ukraine and post-Soviet states more generally.
Furthermore, Ishchenko’s exploration of the role of nationalism in post-Maidan Ukraine is also astute, especially regarding the tension between nationalism and the inclusivity of a democratic society. Nationalism can often be a double-edged sword; while it can serve as a tool for resistance against imperialism, it can also further imperial interests and alienate marginalized groups. Ishchenko is critical of how nationalism has been institutionalized in Ukraine, particularly through state policies that exclude Russian-speaking populations or those with pro-Russian (or even pro-communist) sympathies. This is a vital critique for anyone concerned with the inclusivity of state-building and the potential for progressive politics to be co-opted by nationalist elites.
Additionally, I appreciated Ishchenko’s balanced critique of both Western and Russian imperialism. Rather than falling into the trap of false equivalence, Ishchenko delivers a principled critique of both Russian aggression and Western/NATO expansionism. In his view, Ukraine is caught between the machinations of Western capitalism and political capitalism. No matter which side wins, the average worker is immiserated while the economic and political elite prosper. He resists framing Ukraine merely as a pawn in great power politics, instead situating the conflict in a dynamic where both empires contribute to the erosion of political agency and social justice for ordinary Ukrainians.
Ishchenko situates the conflict within the broader geopolitical context of Russia's role in the region, offering a sophisticated understanding of how external actors (namely Russia and the West) complicated Ukraine’s political and social transitions. He does not shy away from critiquing the role of the West, particularly the EU and NATO, in escalating tensions, while also not giving an inch of apologia to the Russian expansionist project. This recognition of Ukraine as a battleground for geopolitical interests provides a more comprehensive understanding of why the country has faced such instability in the post-Soviet era.
Finally, Ishchenko highlights the suppression of leftist, anti-nationalist, and dissenting intellectuals in Ukraine, often labeled as traitorous or pro-Russian. He is by no means an apologist for Russia or the Soviet Union; rather, he is nostalgic for a time when the current hyper-nationalist sentiment did not exist in Ukraine and people oriented their lives around the communitarian project of communism. Instead, the Ukrainian state has led a concerted campaign of de-communization, erasing any trace of Soviet influence.
This, however, has made the country increasingly similar to Russia, as oligarchic elites (political capitalists) line their pockets through their association with the current Russian state, while a contingent of educated, English-speaking comprador elites actively court the West to further their material interests. For Ishchenko, the Maidan revolution was a bourgeois revolution, which did little to bring relief or democracy for the poor and working class in Ukraine. By centering these dissident voices, he reintroduces pluralism into the analysis of Ukrainian society and shows how liberal authoritarianism can operate under the guise of democratic nationalism.
Critique:
There are a few notable weaknesses to Ishchenko’s brief volume. First of all, despite its brevity, the book’s academic tone and dense theoretical content may be challenging for general readers. While Ishchecko generously provides a quick guide to the current situation in Ukraine at the very beginning of the text to help the reader catch up, much of the writing assumes a familiarity with Ukraine’s political history and context. This may make the book a bit dense for those who are new to political theory and Ukrainian history.
Additionally, while it is beneficial to read Ishchenko’s real-time reflections on the conflicts in Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 as they unfolded, some readers might find this previously published collection of essays lacking in a cohesive structure. Although theoretically rich, the book relies more on macro-sociological and discursive analysis than on ethnographic, on-the-ground research post-2014. This can risk abstraction and fails to fully capture the lived experiences of those navigating the war, displacement, and state collapse in real time, apart from the individual thoughts and musings of Ishchenko.
Another significant weakness of the book is its limited attention to grassroots movements and left-wing politics within Ukraine. While Ishchenko acknowledges the rise of nationalism, he does not fully explore how left-wing groups and labor movements have been involved in Ukraine’s political transformation. While he would argue that the Left is marginal in Ukrainian politics, especially in the aftermath of active decommunization efforts, it is still essential to examine how social movements, labor unions, and leftist political groups were marginalized during the Maidan and in the aftermath. A deeper analysis of the Ukrainian left’s role (or lack thereof) would have enriched the book’s understanding of the potential for progressive politics in Ukraine.
While Ishchenko’s structural analysis is compelling, he may at times understate the agency of Ukrainian civil society, particularly the progressive segments that genuinely mobilized for social justice during Euromaidan. This can lead to a portrayal of Ukrainians as caught in a deterministic web of class and empire, minimizing the transformative aspirations that did animate large parts of the population. For instance, Ishchenko could have examined how Ukrainian leftists responded to the neoliberal economic policies imposed after Maidan, as well as their perspectives on the war in Donbas and its implications for working-class people. The absence of these voices is a noticeable gap, as the left has often been sidelined in both mainstream Ukrainian politics and Western analyses of the conflict.
On a theoretical note, I am a bit skeptical of the clear-cut division between “political capitalism” and its supposedly free-market variant in the West. While I know this is a popular way to delineate between the forms of capitalism found in the West and those in other parts of the world such as Russia and China (such as in Branko Milanović’s work, Capitalism, Alone), I believe that this framing often underestimates how intertwined the forces of capital and the state are in Western capitalist countries as well. As a global system of competitive capital accumulation, capitalism (whether “political” or “liberal-meritocratic” per Milanović’s parlance) will seek to overcome competition and absorb other forms of capital in its ceaseless aim of growth. As such, we must be attentive to the geopolitical dynamics of capitalism and how it affects non-economic spheres of influence, such as foreign policy.
Therefore, the role that NATO expansion plays in the decision of Russia to invade Ukraine is not simply an ideological one cooked up by Putin; rather it is a reality that Russia is feeling the squeeze of international sanctions, has a nationalist interest in reasserting itself as a global superpower, and has increasingly limited options to do so. Running out of soft power to accomplish its aims, Putin has thus turned to expressions of hard power, primarily military intervention, to stave off a struggling economy. Thus, in addition to Ishchenko’s analysis of internal conflicts within Ukraine, we must also remain attentive to the external pressures of competing imperial interests of the United States (via NATO) and Russia.
Furthermore, Ischchenko’s analysis is largely diagnostic and critical; it stops short of offering a coherent emancipatory strategy for Ukraine’s left. For example, how might socialist internationalist politics realistically be rebuilt in a war-torn, nationalist-dominated, and externally pressured society? Ishchenko gestures toward this need but leaves it largely unelaborated. This is most likely due to Ishchenko’s overall pessimism toward politics and the state of leftism within Ukraine, especially as a self-described exile in Berlin.
Finally, just as a small side note, some of Ishchenko’s arguments could be misread as being sympathetic to Russian narratives. Despite Ishchenko’s clear condemnation of the Russian invasion, the book’s challenge to dominant Ukrainian and Western narratives may be misconstrued as an apology for Russian aggression. This is more a political risk than a scholarly flaw, but it’s one that we leftist scholars must be aware of, especially in politicized academic environments.
Conclusion:
Overall, Towards the Abyss is a clear-eyed and insightful collection of essays detailing the political trajectory of Ukrainian politics from the Maidan to the Russian invasion. While short on solutions, Ischenko’s work provides a critical perspective on Ukraine's political and social dynamics, offering insights into the complexities of national identity, class structure, and geopolitical influences. His class-based analysis is valuable in its stalwart refusal to indulge in either liberal triumphalism or authoritarian apologetics. Ishchenko's work challenges these overly simplistic narratives and encourages a deeper understanding of the factors contributing to the ongoing conflict within Ukraine. As such, for scholars committed to a critical internationalism that foregrounds class, decolonization, and anti-imperialism, Ishchenko’s book is indispensable, if not always entirely comfortable, reading.