Although the author simplifies a lot of things (and may get them wrong in the process), this article may be a useful starting point for a discussion.
The full extent of Ukraine’s economic woes in its post-independence era is better explained in a 2012 article from The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace by Pekka Sutela.
The overall impression I get from both these articles is that Ukraine managed its economy very, very badly in the wake of independence. Markovsky asserts that Ukraine attempted to avoid Russian markets in favor of less welcoming EU ones, but Sutela paints a broader picture of a nation that squandered the “infrastructure and capital stock” it inherited from the former USSR through a combination of poor governance (marred by struggles for power), corruption, a weak financial sector, excessive dependence on cheap Russian gas, and a failure to diversify. The Orange Revolution of 2004 was supposed to solve many of these issues, but did not.
Where I think Markovsky gets things more correct is his assertion that a hatred of Russia and all things Russian has driven far too much of Ukraine’s domestic policy. It led to the overthrow of democratically elected (but pro-Russian) President Viktor Yanukovych, in a 2014 coup that was supported by the U.S.’s Obama Administration.
In the wake of this Maidan coup, the largely Russian inhabitants of eastern Ukraine became more resistant to Ukrainian rule. And rather than accepting a need for some degree of autonomy in the region (because nothing Russian can be tolerated at all), Ukraine began bombing its own citizens, and has continued to do so for nearly a decade.
All of which has been studious ignored—particularly since the Russian invasion—by the Western press.
None of this is to suggest that Russia was in the right to invade Ukraine—I categorically reject that assertion. But it does draw attention to the fact that Ukraine has long been a hot mess, and that better governance could have avoided many of the conditions (including Ukraine’s efforts to join NATO, in defiance of a 1997 treaty with Russia) that tempted Putin to invade.
In conclusion, Markovsky quotes Konrad Adenauer (the first chancellor of post-WWII West Germany):
History is the sum of things that could have been avoided.
Thoughts?
A large contributing factor to Russia’s 2022 invasion is the fact that the US has demonized Russia and made engagement with Russia taboo (see Mike Flynn), all because Democrats couldn’t admit that Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate who ran a poor campaign. Ever since 2016, “Russia Bad” has been our elites’ foreign policy.
So, making Russia a pariah for eight years has accomplished nothing but the rise of an anti-Western alliance of them, China, Iran, and others.
There was a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict- more autonomy for the east- but the US and UK goaded both Ukraine and Russia into war with bluster and tough talk, not to mention actively undermining peace talks.
Do not underestimate ideologues’ tolerance for stacks of dead soldiers and civilians if it furthers their goal- in this case, “hurting Putin” (essentially making him pay for “stealing” the 2016 election).
I had dinner with 15 or so Ukrainians at a work function around 2014. People got drunk and started talking about politics (of course). It was 14 to 1 against Russia. The lone holdout kept saying "but we were all a lot better off when Russia was in charge", and the response was basically "of course, but it's Russia!"
As an aside, I also used to know a Chilean immigrant who would get drunk and go on about how great things were under Pinochet. It takes all kinds, I guess.
I'd probably be able to achieve more clarity around Ukraine if so much of their current situation wasn't due to blatant and incompetent fuckery on the part of the US government. Assuming that Russia would fail to act in its own national best interests is a position so absurd that only a neoliberal could ever think of it.