264 “The increasing vibrancy of civil society had become a serious political threat to the authorities.” Ukraine’s Emerging Security State SERHIY KUDELIA U kraine’s Euromaidan Revolution has be- come, in official discourse, a defining mo- ment in the country’s modern history. The revolution, which ousted President Viktor Yanu- kovych in February 2014, is now marked with nu- merous government-sponsored commemorations. Ukraine’s major cities have streets named after the Heavenly Hundred—revolutionaries killed dur- ing clashes with security forces—and memorials honor their sacrifice. The date when the revolu- tion began in 2013, November 21, has been des- ignated as Freedom Day. The government has presented awards to many who participated in the uprising and pays stipends to families of the slain. The museum of the “Revolution of Dignity” will be housed in a massive new building in the center of Kiev. For the average Ukrainian, though, the gains of the revolution appear minuscule, and its legacy re- mains hotly contested. In most surveys conducted since 2015, at least two-thirds of respondents have said the country is moving in the wrong direction, with a majority pointing to persistent corruption and declining incomes. Trust in the leaders and parties associated with the revolution has declined precipitously. Many of Ukraine’s closest allies in the West have become increasingly disillusioned with the pace of reform, the government’s poor human-rights record, and the lack of accountabil- ity for elites. Popular discontent has been somewhat tem- pered by the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, in which more than 10,000 have died, and the continuous security threat emanating from Rus- sia. The perceived vulnerability of the Ukrainian state, which became particularly acute following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the emergence of two separatist-controlled enclaves in the Don- bas region, acts as a restraint on any serious anti- government mobilization in the streets. Similarly, fear of Russian aggression and concerns about Ukraine’s stability help the authorities retain the support of Western allies despite Kiev’s reluctance to implement reforms. Russia’s armed intervention in Ukraine has also made Moscow a favorite scapegoat of Ukrainian elites for a range of other problems. None of the numerous assassinations of prominent figures, occurring more frequently in Kiev and elsewhere since 2014, have been fully investigated. Yet the Ukrainian authorities often point to them as evi- dence of Russian subversion. While the war remains the top national problem for most Ukrainians, ruling elites have shown lit- tle urgency in seeking a diplomatic resolution. In- creased military spending, which in 2018 amount- ed to five percent of the country’s gross domestic product, has offered a new and abundant source for rent-seeking schemes. Security needs have also become a convenient excuse for the authorities to limit democratic freedoms and expand the co- ercive apparatus of the state. There have been at- tempts to regulate the flow of information, impose official historical narratives, and introduce lan- guage quotas. However, formal institutions remain weak and are continuously subverted by informal norms of elite behavior. Despite its expanded constitutional powers, the parliament has exercised little influence over the government’s policies. It has largely acted as a rub- ber stamp for decisions made by President Petro Poroshenko’s inner circle. The president consults only with select leaders from the ruling coalition. One of their policy priorities is a nation-building effort based on ethnocentric ideas aimed at pro- ducing a more homogeneous Ukraine. This stems in part from the view that local par- ticipation in the armed separatist movement was mainly due to the Russified character of Don- SERHIY KUDELIA is an associate professor of political science at Baylor University.