“The Ukrainian Model” — Rethinking Resilience for a New Era

Hlibovytskyi began by addressing a fundamental misconception: both Russia and the West expected Ukraine to collapse quickly. Western analysts used conventional institutional metrics—performance, hierarchy, authority—and concluded Ukraine was unprepared and "underperformed" according to those standards. Putin deployed fewer troops than necessary, assuming an "easy walk." Both Moscow and Washington were wrong. Ukraine proved more resilient than anyone anticipated.

This resilience, Hlibovytskyi argued, stems not from strong state institutions — but from decades of societal mistrust in them. Soviet totalitarian trauma left Ukrainians viewing the state as a potential threat rather than protector. “Technically, when millions of Ukrainians were killed in the previous centuries by the Russian or Soviet colonial powers, they were killed according to existing law at the time. It wasn’t fair, it wasn’t just—but it was legal.”

This historical trauma fundamentally shaped political culture. Contrary to Western advice in the 1990s about building strong state institutions, Ukrainians instinctively chose to limit centralized power, which resulted in a hybrid system: a weaker, often inefficient state, balanced by a powerful civil society that provides everything from logistics and services to moral leadership. 

Rather than aiming for a traditional liberal democracy, Ukraine developed what Hlibovytskyi calls a transitional ‘Ukrainian’ model—defined by distributed responsibility, distrust of centralized power, and constant improvisation. It is not efficient, but it is resilient. In wartime, resilience is everything and it is what is helping Ukrainians to stand up firmly against Russian aggression.

This system has been further shaped in recent history by Ukraine’s decentralization reforms. Local governments now retain and manage most tax revenues, increasing local accountability and reducing fears that taxes will fund repression. That reform closed a historical gap between the citizens and the state.

Among the key drivers of this civic model, Hlibovytskyi underscored the role of the church—not as a religious structure alone, but as a deeply embedded social institution. He explained that Ukraine’s religious landscape is more akin to North America’s pluralism than Europe’s denominational uniformity. The country is home to multiple Orthodox jurisdictions, Greek and Roman Catholics, Protestant communities, and Muslim minorities—each playing a role in society.This religious diversity, he argued, has created “a society that has many truths,” where no single moral framework dominates. Instead, ethical norms are negotiated across differences. The church in Ukraine functions as a component of civil society. It helps fill gaps in the state’s social protection systems and contributes to community cohesion. In some cases, he noted, even government officials behave more like activists—because the civic ecosystem has normalized flexible, mission-driven behavior.

The Integration Paradox: When EU Standards Undermine Resilience

The conversation turned toward Ukraine’s path to EU integration. Hlibovytskyi expressed serious concern that harmonizing Ukrainian institutions with EU templates risks undermining the very resilience that has sustained the country during war. Some European standards, he noted, are either lower than Ukraine’s own or fail to account for wartime realities like security, flexibility, and civic improvisation: “The game right now is that there’s an EU that has the model, and then there’s Ukraine that doesn’t—or has the inferior model [...] but the benefit of ourselves would be to review the way we conduct negotiations with the EU, change the rules and make sure that this is the mutual integration–not a one-way street. Because if it's a one-way street then Ukraine will become weaker and the EU does not need a weaker Ukraine in the union. Ukraine actually is bringing its strength for the benefit of the union and if we want the union to prosper then it's important that we also take the positive experience that we see from Ukraine and then implement it elsewhere to the benefit of the societies.” This “lab” approach extends to civic identity. In Ukraine, being a citizen transcends ethnicity or heritage—it is about shared ownership of the state as a necessary environment. That includes defending it, challenging it, and constantly rebuilding it. 

A Caution to the West

Throughout the conversation, Hlibovytskyi warned that Ukrainian resilience is often taken for granted—with political consequences. As the war continues, Ukraine's political center erodes. With each year of attrition, more Ukrainians abandon centrist positions for radical ones. In 2019, the united nationalist bloc received just 2% of the vote. Today, that sentiment is rising.

He reflected on Ukraine's nuclear disarmament in the 1990s—a decision most now regret as they watch the world hesitate to uphold promises meant to follow.

In a powerful closing reflection, he issued a moral warning to the broader West: “I'm afraid that protecting ourselves in the 21st century will take us as societies out of the comfort zone. We've over consumed the benefits in previous years or previous decades or previous generations to the point that now this generation will have to pick up the bill. And in order not to deepen the problem, we would have to learn to live along the stricter rules. I can't believe that I'm a Ukrainian coming to Denmark to bring this message—because usually it's vice versa. But this is really the case. We will have to watch out.”

“For Ukraine—and perhaps for the democratic world at large — resilience these days may matter more than efficiency, and civic agency more than institutional polish. Ukraine may not offer a textbook model but it offers a living one - tested and adaptive, one that survived and is growing an immunity to the totalitarianisms and autocratic rule of both right and left kinds. And in a century marked by disruption, that kind of resilience may be the most valuable currency of all,” concluded Nataliia Popovych, chairperson of Ukraine House in Denmark. 

We thank Yevhen Hlibovytskyi for his profound contribution to our shared understanding of democracy, leadership, and civic strength—and for sharing his vision of Ukraine’s future with us.

Ukraine House in Denmark continues to facilitate critical conversations about Ukraine's present and future. Join us for upcoming events exploring the intersection of culture, democracy, resilience, and European integration.