Ukrainska Pravda column: war exposes the state as a “stationary bandit”
A Ukrainska Pravda columnist, Mykhailo Dubynianskyi, uses a theory by US economists to argue that a prolonged war pushes the Ukrainian state toward a “stationary bandit” model. He concludes that the realistic alternative is Russian occupation.
In a column published by the Ukrainian outlet Ukrainska Pravda, author Mykhailo Dubynianskyi examines the relationship between the state and its citizens during Russia's full-scale war. The starting point is an incident on 15 October near the village of Holoshnytsia on the Ukraine–Moldova border: Moldovan police detained two officers of Ukraine's State Border Guard Service in a motorboat. They had reportedly entered the neighbouring country illegally while pursuing a 49-year-old man who was trying to leave Ukraine by swimming across the Dniester. The man claimed the guards hit him on the head with an oar and wanted to drown him; a Moldovan hospital diagnosed a concussion.
The “stationary bandit” theory
The author draws on a theory developed in the 1990s by US economists Mancur Olson and Martin McGuire. In it, nomadic raiders first plunder populations, then a “stationary bandit” settles in a territory. It is not in his interest to take everything, so he replaces chaotic robbery with systematic taxation and keeps order, keeping rival bandits out. Over time an illusion of a voluntary social contract emerges.
Dubynianskyi argues that a long, bloody war reverses this evolution: the state more often ignores its own rules and gives executors a free hand to act unlawfully. As a Russian example he cites the private military company Wagner. In his view, multibillion-dollar aid from Western partners reduces the state's incentive to care about taxpayers' welfare, creating a gap between the population and a minority close to the authorities. He cites the remark of jailed Ihor Kolomoisky: “Will Europe keep giving money once peace begins?”
Conclusion
The author notes that the realistic alternative to the current state is not an ideal society but Russian aggression and occupation. In his view, the state is effectively arguing that it is the lesser of two evils, and the open question is whether this will motivate dissatisfied citizens to defend it.
