Society

The transformation of Ukrainian society from Soviet models to those of the West accelerated in the early 2000s. But even as social change occurred, the country’s society retained many uniquely post-Soviet features.

Perhaps most striking was the consolidation of the new elite of Ukraine. For the first time in centuries the elite became Ukrainian: its rise, status, and even plans for the future were based in Ukraine. No longer, as in Soviet, Habsburg, or Russian imperial periods did the most ambitious, talented, or well-connected Ukrainians move to imperial capitals such as Moscow, St Petersburg, and Vienna to make their fortunes. Businessmen, politicians, actors and writers, professionals of every type now accepted Ukraine as the context in which they could best develop their talents. This is not to say that they were ethnically, culturally, or linguistically Ukrainian. Many were not. But for them Ukraine now served as the basic framework for their recent successes and plans for the future.

In terms of origins, most of these oligarchs had usually been clever, opportunistic, and junior members of the former Soviet establishment, and they knew how to use their old connections to great advantage. This helped them, during the chaotic 1990s, to acquire, usually in an illegal or suspect fashion, ownership of Ukraine’s huge steel mills, coal mines, chemical and heavy machinery plants, construction companies, and banks. Some monopolized entire industries such as steel production or coal mining, becoming incredibly wealthy in the process. Renat Akhmetov of Donetsk became one of the richest men in Europe with a fortune estimated at $6 billion. Based in Dniepropetrovsk, Viktor Pinchuk accumulated about $5 billion, while Ihor Kolomoisky was valued at over $3 billion.

Like the old feudal nobility, many members of the new elite engaged in conspicuous consumption. Kiev, it seemed, had more Mercedes, Bentleys, and Maybachs clogging its ever more crowded streets than other European cities. Huge and elaborate homes, encircled by security fences, sprang up in suburbs such as Koncha Zaspa. The children of oligarchs were often sent to elite schools abroad. However, as opportunities for easy enrichment dwindled in the early 2000s, entry into this group became more difficult, and it increasingly began to function as a closed, privileged caste.

Although many of the oligarchs had regional bases, usually in industrial centres such as Donetsk and Dniepropetrovsk or, to a lesser extent, Odessa and Lviv, they tended to congregate in the capital, Kiev, because it was here they could influence the political decisions that were relevant to their business interests. Indeed, they often viewed the state as yet another instrument for self-enrichment. In the early 2000s the oligarchs, in a fashion typical of all new elites, began to legitimize their recently acquired wealth by conducting business in ever more legal or accepted ways. This helped in developing international connections, especially in the West. Some even attempted to improve their image by engaging in philanthropic or charitable activities. However, in most cases, this did not alter the extremely negative image that they had among the general population. For the most part they were viewed as rapacious and dishonest opportunists who cared little for their workers or the general public. In the fall of 2008 the overbearing confidence of the very rich was badly shaken when the impact of the global financial crisis hit Ukraine.

Among Western observers it was common practice to look for signs of a rising Western-style middle class in the former Soviet countries. This reflected the belief that an expanding middle class would provide the social base for the growth of democracy. Signs appeared that such a development was taking place, but they were limited. Given the great number of well-educated individuals in the country, it is not surprising that many considered themselves to be members of the middle class. However, few had incomes of $1000–$3000 a month that, in Ukraine, could support a middle-class lifestyle. In short, this segment of society, which was highly dependent on an expanding economy, was only beginning to form.

The new middle class included professionals, government officials, middle management, small business owners, and employees in foreign-owned businesses. Its members tended to be young, constituting a Ukrainian equivalent of the yuppie generation. Usually they inhabited large cities, especially Kiev, where well-paying jobs were most plentiful. Also Kharkiv, Dniepropetrovsk, Donetsk, Odessa, and Lviv had sizable numbers of this new class. Its members could afford cars, apartments, computers, foreign travel, and even modest dachas. Avid participants in consumer culture, they tried to emulate Western lifestyles. As a rule, this up-and-coming social group was not given to reminiscing about the Soviet past and was more inclined to look to the future. In political terms, it usually espoused liberal views and supported policies that drew its country closer to Europe.

Although expanding, this class was still limited in size. Most optimistic estimates considered that it constituted less than 10% of the population, far below the number needed to form the core of a social structure like that of Western societies.⁹ The financial crisis of 2008, and particularly job losses in the financial and management sectors, slowed the growth of this social stratum even more.

As a Western-style middle class slowly emerged, another important social group – the intelligentsia (people with a higher education) – gradually declined. Since the nineteenth century the intelligentsia, while never numerous, had been in the forefront of ideological and political developments in Ukraine. In Soviet times it formed the literary, artistic, scientific, and technological elite. In the 1980s, the intelligentsia numbered about 2.5 million. And as long as one did not challenge the political order, members of this social group lived relatively well.

But the growing market economy, consumer culture, and mass media had not been kind to the traditional intelligentsia. What it produced – ideologies, scholarship, and literary and artistic works – was needed less and less in the consumer-oriented, materialistic society that valued entrepreneurs, managers, computer specialists, and professional politicians. Consequently, the income of many members of the old intelligentsia, especially those in cultural fields and education, decreased greatly. Some managed to move into the new middle class. Others, teachers most notably, slipped lower on the social scale. Statistics reflected the decline: in 1991 there were about 300,000 doktory (the highest academic rank) in Ukraine; in 2008 the number sank to fewer than 140,000. The fact that the golden age of the intelligenty was coming to an end was also reflected in the leadership of crucial political events. In the early 1990s it had still been the traditional, culturally oriented intelligentsia that formed RUKH and spearheaded the drive for independence.

The troubles of the intelligentsia did not translate into a decline in educational levels. A high level of education, a heritage of Soviet times, remained: the literacy rate was 99.4%, about 15% of the population had higher education, and 78% completed secondary education. There were close to 8 million pupils in primary and secondary schools and about 1 million in post-secondary institutions. Financing education, as usual, was a major problem. In the difficult 1990s it sank from 2.3% of the GDP to 0.6%. Research institutions lost about 70% of their budgets and a significant portion of their personnel. However, by 2006, as the economy improved, expenditures for education rose to 6.3% of the GDP. Efforts were also made to introduce a more democratic, decentralized mode of education. An important step in this direction was Ukraine’s acceptance of the Bologna Agreement, which sought to bring its universities closer to the West European models. Another positive feature was the appearance of private institutions of learning, especially on the secondary school level, which introduced some variety and competition into the educational system. Nonetheless, progress was slow. Innovation often met with stubborn resistance, textbooks were frequently substandard, school reforms were only partial, and, as always, financing was inadequate. Thus, while the number of educational opportunities remained high, their quality was in need of improvement. Other urban dwellers

Urbanization, which began in earnest in Soviet times, continued unabated. About 67% of the country’s inhabitants lived in cities and it was obvious that this percentage would increase in the future. In the forefront of urban development was Kiev. It developed into a large – officially its population was 2.6 million but unofficially it was closer to 4 million – modern megapolis where jobs were relatively plentiful, cultural attractions frequent and varied, educational opportunities numerous, and career growth promising.

Life in smaller cities such as Krvyi Rih, Mykolaiv, Mariupol, Luhansk, Poltava, Zhytomyr, Sumy, Ivano-Frankivsk, Ternopil, Chernivtsi, Uzhorod, Vynntysia, Rivne, and Chernihiv was much less dynamic and often provincial. For the most part, these smaller cities were far behind the large urban centres in economic development. However, some of these cities, notably those in the west, such as Chernivtsi and Ivano-Frankivsk, boasted impressive Habsburg-era buildings and attracted more foreign investment than others in their category. Mid-sized urban centres in the east, however, were usually drab and economically passive. Small towns in Ukraine were usually characterized by little commercial activity, high unemployment, few opportunities, and many inhabitants who were absorbed by the struggle to survive. Numerous inhabitants in these towns were also preoccupied with finding ways to move to larger urban centres or to find work abroad.

The problem of unemployment and low salaries was especially acute in the primarily rural western oblasts, where unemployment was several times higher and salaries about half those in the country as a whole. There was some improvement in the housing of the inhabitants of large urban centres. Most apartments had been privatized, making their inhabitants owners of their dwellings. In the large cities, especially Kiev, where real estate prices grew at one of the fastest rates in the world, even owners of modest apartments significantly raised their net worth. Communal apartments, shared by several families and widespread in Soviet days, largely disappeared. Many Ukrainians renovated their dwellings. However, costs of maintenance rose steadily, availability of hot water and heating was often unreliable, and common areas were frequently neglected. Moreover, it was not uncommon for members of several generations to live in the same apartment.

The wages of most urban inhabitants were generally low, about $300–500 a month on average. However, Kievans often earned about 40% more than that. The variety of employment was typical of large urban centres: skilled and unskilled labourers, employees in the service and retail sectors, clerks, minor government officials, taxi drivers, bookkeepers, street vendors, business employees, teachers, nurses, technicians, and the like. In Donetsk coal miners were numerous, in Zaporizhia it was steelworkers, and in Dniepropetrovsk industrial workers predominated. Urban dwellers frequently had to take two or even three jobs in order to make ends meet. For most of them their earnings allowed for survival – the cost of living was still relatively low – but little else. The contrast to West European living standards was glaring: on average the spending power of West Europeans was eight times greater than that of Ukrainians. The average consumer in Ukraine could afford only 9% of what an average German could buy. For most Ukrainians it was common to depend on help from family, especially parents, and friends, in times of need. Despite the improving economy, approximately 25–35% still lived in poverty.

In sharp contrast to Soviet times, feelings of financial insecurity were widespread. Salaries were frequently paid irregularly and working conditions were often poor. Between 2000 and 2005 inflation was about 10–12% but it rose to over 20% in 2008. For growing numbers of the elderly, the pensions they depended on were very meagre, usually about $20–40 a month. Officially medical care was free, but one usually had to pay for medicine and food in the poorly equipped hospitals. Bribing doctors to get better care was common practice. Women, although as qualified as men, were often at a disadvantage in the labour market. Generally they had the lowest-paid jobs and were the first to be fired. Consequently, about 80% of the unemployed were female. Little wonder that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian women sought work abroad. Many became trapped in the growing and exploitive sex trade.

To make matters worse, alcoholism increased. One in three males and one in twelve females was a heavy drinker. Moreover, the number addicted to drugs and suffering from HIV also rose. Even when living standards improved after 2000 – by as much as 80% in the 2000–4 period alone – many Ukrainians remained pessimistic, complaining that they were very dissatisfied with the current state of their society. In terms of global standards of living, Ukraine was only about seventy-sixth in world, a rating similar to that of other post-Soviet societies. The declining village

For centuries Ukrainian language, folk culture, and economy, indeed all that was considered genuinely Ukrainian, was based in the village. It was the core of the country’s society and the primary source of its national distinctiveness. It was here that traditions were preserved, customs respected, and religion practised, and here too where the roots of many Ukrainian families lay. Its inhabitants lived in their own houses, worked their gardens, cared for livestock, and existed in their own small, relatively isolated worlds. By the early 2000s, however, the rural population, constituting about 15 million inhabitants or 33% of the country’s inhabitants, began to undergo fundamental changes. In almost every region it slowly declined. Diminishing numbers of rural dwellers was, of course, a global phenomenon. But given the importance of the village in Ukrainian life and identity, this disturbing transformation was especially meaningful and far-reaching.

Life in the village had always been hard. In the 1990s, as the collective farm system gradually disintegrated, as fuel and farm machinery were far beyond the means of an average farmer, and as a market for his products was lacking, mere survival was the primary concern for most villagers. Moreover, many of the villagers’ city-based relatives made the trek to their home villages to grow food to help family members survive. In the early 2000s, however, signs of change began to appear. Former collective farm workers received shares of former collective farm land. But they lacked the means to work these plots. Therefore they usually rented them out, at minimal rates, to agricultural entrepreneurs or risk-taking farmers who began to appear. Villagers concentrated their efforts on their garden plots that provided them with most of their food. Hard work and lack of opportunity – unemployment in the countryside was about 17%, two to three times higher than in urban centres – did not appeal to the younger generation, who often moved to cities. Consequently, the village population grew not only smaller but older. By 2006 over 30% of the villagers were beyond retirement age and dependent on their meagre pensions. Generating greater income was difficult, however, because wages in the countryside were very low, less than half of industrial wages. As result, about 66% of the rural population lived below the poverty level.¹⁰

The general upsurge in Ukraine’s economy that came after 2004 brought improvements to the village. Rising prices for food allowed many villagers to earn additional income. Often, especially in the western regions, villagers sought work abroad, sending money back home to support their families (although the extended absence of a wife or husband created a new set of problems). Generally, women from western parts of Ukraine found employment as domestics or caregivers to the elderly in Italy, Spain, and Portugal, while men from the eastern regions sought work in Russia, usually in construction. As a result, between 2001 and 2006 rural incomes more than tripled. Although this was still less than the increase in incomes in the cities, it did mean that money became more plentiful in the villages.

Most important was the increase in socio-economic differentiation as the number of those who considered themselves to be well off rose from 0.5% in 2002 to 5% in 2006. The percentage of the very poor declined from 91% in 2001 to 45% in 2006. There were, of course, regional differences. Although their land was less fertile, village households in the western regions appeared to be more economically feasible while those in eastern regions such as Luhansk or Donetsk, despite the fertile soil, had much less promising prospects. The stronger traditions of private ownership in the west may help explain these differences.

Economic improvement did not mean, however, economic strength. Consequently, by 2008, the economic options available to many ageing villagers were rather stark: they could rent their land to increasing numbers of large agribusinesses, often foreign owned, for minimal prices, thus encouraging the development of Latin American-style latifundia, or they could try to develop – with government subsidies or expensive bank loans – small but efficient family farms similar to those in Western Europe and Poland. In 2008 the first option seemed more likely. This meant that more transformations awaited the village.

Even more disturbing were the demographic aspects of village life. Poor health care and widespread alcoholism, especially among males, meant that death rates were higher in villages than in cities. Unemployment remained high and many villagers urged their children to seek an easier life in the cities. As a result, between 1996 and 2000 rural population declined by 750,000. And in the initial decade of new millennium the rural population decline continued unabated. It was estimated that by 2010 only about 20% of the country’s population would be living in villages. Population decline was particularly sharp in the northern and eastern regions of Chernihiv, Poltava, Sumy, Luhansk, and Donetsk. In short, the village was rapidly losing its traditional place as the social and cultural core of life in Ukraine.

For Ukraine, the fading of the traditional intelligentsia and the decline of the village were momentous developments. For centuries these two social segments had been at the centre of crucial events in the country. They had set it apart from the noble-dominated society of Poland, from the bureau-cratized elites of the Russian empire, and from the urban, industrialized model of the Soviet man. However, the decline of the intelligentsia and the peasantry and the simultaneous growth of the new, urban, globally oriented, educated, middle class meant that Ukrainians were increasingly moving towards a social structure that was similar to that of other societies in Europe. A new era in the social history of Ukraine had commenced. Corruption

One of the most depressing aspects of life in Ukraine was the prevalence of corruption. To a certain degree, it was a global phenomenon. But in the former Soviet countries, where wages were low, the rule of law weak, and ethics ambiguous, it was especially widespread.¹¹ Bribery and corruption were often commonly accepted ways of getting things done. Over 90% of the country’s inhabitants believed that their society was thoroughly corrupt. About 67% of Ukrainians stated that, in the last twelve months, they had had to bribe government bureaucrats. Little wonder that in 2007 about 83% of Ukrainians believed that corruption was widespread in government.

Corruption took many forms: it could be deputies selling their votes for huge sums or the well-connected arranging to acquire public property at absurdly low prices. On a more mundane level, traffic fines or customs duties could be bypassed with the help of bribes. Perhaps most disturbing was the widespread use of bribes to ensure acceptance into institutions of higher learning and to ensure high grades or to influence decisions in the courts of law. In cities that lacked major industries, such as Lviv, for example, bribes were often seen as a means of generating additional income. Clearly these practices were highly detrimental to society as a whole: they demoralized the citizenry, undermined the rule of law, and made the conduct of business more complicated and expensive. Despite frequent promises by state leaders to attack the problem, little was done. Obviously numerous vested interests lay behind this lack of progress. Demographics

In the long list of woes that confronted Ukrainians there was yet another, even more serious problem – demographic decline. A century ago, Ukraine had one of the highest birth rates in Europe; in 2008, however, it had one of the lowest in the world. In 1992 its population was 52.2 million; sixteen years later it sank to 46.2 million. And estimates predicted a continuation of the sharp decline. For every nine babies born born per 1,000, there were sixteen deaths per 1000. In all industrialized countries, people lived longer. In Ukraine, however, the average lifespan of males dropped to sixty-two, while females lived to seventy-four. The reasons for this worrisome decline were many. Although a population decline was already noticeable in the late Soviet period, the economic crisis of the 1990s had discouraged the creation of families. Worsening health care and cramped housing added to the problem. Moreover, modern, educated women, especially in problem-ridden Ukraine, were reluctant to have the 2.2 children per family needed to maintain a steady level of population. Consequently, the average number of children per family in Ukraine was merely 1.3. In urban centres it was even lower.

Regional differences were noteworthy. The death rate, especially among men, was especially high in the heavily industrialized, ecologically dangerous centres of eastern and southern Ukraine. In the poorer but more agrarian western oblasts, the death rate was much lower. It was, perhaps, an indication that rural life was more difficult but healthier. In contrast to Western Europe, immigration to Ukraine was still small, numbering about 150,000. But given the country’s declining population it was possible that immigrants from more densely populated parts of globe would appear in greater numbers in Ukraine.

The early 2000s witnessed yet another striking social phenomenon – the generation gap. It was inevitable that an older generation, raised in the heavily ideological, regimented, and controlled Soviet system, and the younger generation, growing up in the materialistic market economy and chaotic political system of most recent times, would differ more than usual. These differences led, on the one hand, to frequent complaints that the young lacked idealism and, on the other, that the old stood in the way of much-needed change. In essence, these tensions reflected the fact that two very different cultures and systems of values – the old Soviet and the new global – coexisted in Ukraine. However, the inevitable tensions did not lead to open confrontations. But the gap between of old veterans who proudly wore Soviet service medals and young teenagers who listened to English rock music on their iPods added complexity to conditions that were already difficult. Emigration

Given the numerous difficulties confronting Ukraine’s inhabitants, it was not surprising that many sought to emigrate. In 2008 it was estimated that between 2.5 and 3 million had left their homeland during the last twenty years. A rough estimation of where they settled is as follows.¹²

The vast majority of those who emigrated were so-called illegals – they did not have a legal right to remain in the countries where they lived and worked. Men, especially from eastern regions, tended to seek work, usually in construction, in Russia. Work in construction sites also attracted men to the Czech Republic, Spain, and Portugal. Women, often from the villages and small towns of the western regions where unemployment was high, often made their way to southern Europe where they worked as domestics or caregivers for the elderly.

While emigration was not unusual for Ukrainians, certain features of this most recent variant were new and worrisome. About half of the emigrants had higher education. Many were highly trained scientists, computer specialists, and scholars. And they were for the most part young. Clearly these were people no country could afford to lose. Moreover, most of the women who emigrated left their children and husbands back home. The growing numbers of motherless children and alcoholic men created major problems in the communities the women left behind. However, the huge emigration also had a positive aspect: according to a United Nations report, in 2007 alone Ukrainian emigrants sent about $8 billion back home. The Ukrainian National Bank claimed that the figure was closer to $20 billion or about a quarter of the country’s GDP.

Commonly called the “fourth wave,” this latest exodus of people from Ukraine was obviously motivated by economic considerations. In this it differed greatly from its predecessors, the politicized displaced persons of the post-Second World War period. When they came into contact with previous waves of emigrants in the United States or Canada, members of the “fourth wave” tended to stress their differences rather than similarities. By and large, the new emigrants, especially those from eastern Ukraine, were not drawn to the numerous Ukrainian institutions and organizations their predecessors had established. However, many heritage schools, credit unions, and media benefited greatly from a much-needed infusion of new emigrants who could speak proper contemporary Ukrainian. In countries such as Italy, Spain, and Portugal, where there had not been a significant Ukrainian diaspora, the new immigrants, especially those from western Ukraine, had a great impact. There they established numerous parishes, heritage schools, and social organizations, making the geographic dispersion of Ukrainian emigrants much wider than ever. Religion

One aspect of life in Ukraine that exhibited impressive growth was religion. In 1991 about 15% of Ukraine’s inhabitants declared that they were religious; in 2007 the figure rose to 65–70%. What was the explanation for this outburst of religiosity? The removal of Soviet repression certainly played a role. However, the deep roots that religious practice had in the Ukrainian village and among the poorer strata of population was perhaps more decisive. Even in Soviet times, religious belief was more widespread in Ukraine than Russia. In the more traditionalist western regions it was especially deeply rooted. But the spread, or rather, re-emergence, of religion did not mean that it took a unified form. Quite the opposite. Religious worship in Ukraine was not only fragmented but also had important political ramifications.

The vast majority of Ukrainians were, of course, Orthodox. But they belonged to three different churches. The largest church, led by Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) was based mainly in the east and south, and remained, as in Soviet times, subordinated to the patriarch in Moscow. It energetically favoured close ties with Russia. In 2008 its domain was extensive: in addition to numerous monasteries and seminaries, it had about 11,200 parishes and 9,200 clergy. In central Ukraine, after independence, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kievan Patriarchate emerged, led by the controversial Metropolitan Filaret. With 3,900 parishes and 2,900 clergy, it strove to be a Ukrainian national church, using Ukrainian in its liturgy and cultivating Ukrainian religious traditions. It too had numerous monasteries and seminaries and was especially well represented in Kiev. In the western regions, another new Orthodox church, the Autocephalous Orthodox church had about 1,200 parishes and approximately 660 clergy. It also cultivated a Ukrainian character and looked to the Orthodox patriarch in Istanbul for ecclesiastical leadership.

Rounding out the list of major churches was the Greek-Catholic church based in the western regions, where it re-emerged in 1991. It ministered to about 4 million west Ukrainians, mainly in Galicia, in its 3,600 parishes. Well-organized and dynamic, it had about 2,200 clergy, numerous seminaries, and a newly established Ukrainian Catholic university in Lviv ably led by its rector, Borys Gudziak. In order to emphasize its all-Ukrainian character, its leader, Cardinal Lubomyr Huzar, moved its seat from Lviv to Kiev, where he began the construction of a Greek-Catholic cathedral. However, longstanding attempts by the reinvigorated church to have the pope raise its leader to the rank of patriarch, fiercely opposed by the Orthodox leadership in Moscow, proved fruitless.

The Roman Catholic church in Ukraine had about 1 million members, most of whom were of Polish background. The majority of its approximately 880 parishes were on the Right Bank or in Galicia, where once many Poles lived. Served by about 500 clergy, Roman Catholic services were held in Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and Latin. An important advantage of the Roman Catholic church was the very significant support, both in human resources and financial aid, that it received from Poland. Protestants in Ukraine, mostly Baptists, were organized in numerous communities. However, these were usually small, and only about 125,000 or 2–3% of the country’s population belonged to one of the Protestant churches. In the 1990s, some Protestant churches, aided by co-religionists in the West, proselytized very actively, but in the early 2000s this activity declined noticeably. Muslims were concentrated mostly in the Crimea, where the approximately 300,000 Crimean Tatars lived. There were also sizable Muslim communities in Ukraine’s eastern and southern regions. In all, they supported about 150 mosques. Although small in number – estimates ranged from 100,000 to 200,000 – the Jews of Ukraine were well organized. They had over 100 Lubavitcher and 50 Reform synagogues. A large percentage of Jews, between 35 and 40%, were active in their secular and religious organizations. Because a significant portion of the very wealthy were Jewish, their organizations and synagogues had strong financial support and considerable political influence. Moreover, they benefited from a significant and consistent flow of aid from Israel and the North American diaspora.

Although the number of church, mosque, and synagogue members had burgeoned, it did not mean that the majority of Ukrainians were regular practitioners. Only about 5 million could be considered as belonging to this category. Most were vaguely religious and practiced religious rites during major religious holidays, without paying much attention to the ecclesiastical adherence of the church they attended. Indeed, unlike their neighbours in Russia, Ukrainians exhibited a great degree of religious tolerance. Moreover, for the most part they did not support – except in the western regions – the idea of having one dominant national church. The churches themselves, however, were not reticent about taking sides in non-religious matters, often urging their faithful to support one or another political cause. The adherents of the Moscow Patriarchate were notably energetic in this regard, especially when it came to advocating closer ties with Russia. Be that as it may, religious growth in Ukraine clearly reflected the fact that its inhabitants felt a need, based on old traditions or current needs, for spiritual solace.

By the first decade of the third millennium, despite frequent confrontations, self-serving obstructions, repeated delays, and numerous weaknesses, Ukraine reached the point of no return. Resuscitating the old Soviet order in any shape or form was no longer an option. Few even considered it seriously. Its many defects notwithstanding, as a large and increasingly important state, Ukraine entered a new era. Its economy, still in pressing need of reform, nevertheless showed great promise. And its inhabitants, while still relatively impoverished, were beginning to improve their lot. The characteristic features of the past – the inferiority complexes bred by domineering empires, the numerous and exploited villages, the crucial role of a tiny intelligentsia – were fading fast. They were replaced by an emerging middle class, large cities teeming with cars, computers that fostered a growing openness to the world, and an impatient, confident younger generation. Even though financial crisis slowed the rise in the standard of living, most believed that sooner or later it would improve. Without a violent revolution taking place, the fundamental changes occurring in politics, the economy, and society were nothing short of revolutionary. A country long characterized by crippling abnormalities, Ukraine was gradually becoming normal, that is, more and more like other countries. It had become a full-fledged member of the global society.