The content of the latest issue of the “BINTEL” journal demonstrates that geopolitical analytics remains the main theme of articles published on its pages, the authors of which thoroughly analyze the events that are directly related to Ukraine, whose future is once again being tested, but now, in addition to the war in the East, by the unexpected pandemic. Of course, we could have paid more attention to the coronavirus, as politicians and analysts (both, foreign and our own) do it. But today, the world is developing against the background of many events, including the pandemic with the quarantine, not the other way around, when such dangers are used to “correct” this development, and to explain or justify own geopolitical miscalculations. Numerous articles offered to our readers in this issue show exactly what miscalculations those are, what peculiarities of geopolitical steps are used by major and so-called minor countries.
Traditionally, we start with President of the Independent Analytical Center for Geopolitical Studies “Borysfen Intel” Victor Hvozd’s article “Results and Prospects of the Development of Geopolitical Processes in the World”, in which the author summarizes global transformations of the structure of international relations that began about twenty years ago — in the early 2000s, and gave rise to a new multi-polar world with several multifaceted centers of power. Briefly describing the reasons for the emergence of these centers of power, the author points out that today such a process is undergoing changes, new centers of power are emerging on the world stage, which the “old-timers” have to take into consideration, and which in international relations causes exacerbation of the existing and emergence of new conflicts and dividing lines. The author emphasizes that this is what gives rise to armed conflicts or local, regional and global wars. How it is happening right now and what Ukraine should expect in the future, when the development of the geopolitical situation is accelerating, V. Hvozd describes in detail in his article, offering his vision of the further developments.
The author believes that in any case, Ukraine will remain at the intersection of the interests of the leading centers of power, which will continue to pose critical threats to its security. Therefore, we have no other way than to strengthen our economy and truly develop our defense potential.
Professor Myroslav Dnistryanskyi’s article entitled “Russian Geopolitical School: the Gravity of Great Power Ambitions”, is as interesting as all his previous ones. This time the author decided to respond to the “messages” of the Russian geopolitics, which, as he writes, “has a long-standing tradition, but at the same time is not marked by a wide variety of approaches and ideas, since its main task at all times has been to justify Russia’s great power policy toward expanding of the state’s space, increasing control over the surrounding territories, and strengthening its international position”. First, the author refers to historical events when the Moscow kingdom, being transformed into the Russian Empire, “inherited” the imperial traditions of the Byzantine Empire and began to consider itself a “Third Rome”, which soon became its official doctrine. And then demonstrates how later in the geopolitical aspect, the doctrine of the “Third Rome” strengthened Russia’s imperial-expansionist ambitions, became the ideology of its peculiar messianism, especially in those regions of the world where Orthodox Christianity prevailed, — “Forming a large-scale geopolitical consciousness, the doctrine of the “Third Rome” played a uniquely negative role in Russia’s domestic politics, creating a particular intolerance not only to the state-independent aspirations of the most numerous peoples of the empire, above all the Ukrainians, but also to their independent cultural development”. To those who are now trying not to uphold such Russian politics, at least to “adjust” historical events or facts, the author proposes to view them from a scientific point of view, that is, as the whole civilized world does when there is no bias, when events or phenomena are not reversed, where the truth is not concealed or offered for its intended purpose.
The article deals with topics such as the emergence of the doctrine of Pan-Slavism and aspects of its spread and the growth in the 19th century of the ethno-national identity of the Slavic peoples of Central-Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, and the Slavic socio-cultural figures’s points of view on the creation of Slavic states in the form of a federation or confederation, against which, by the way, were Russian Slavophiles who have always been supporters solely of the autocratic Russian empire. The author also tells about the circumstances which in the 1920s gave birth to the Eurasian doctrine, one of the sources of which was N. Danilevsky’s views on the cultural confrontation between Russia and Europe. Although well-known historians, philologists, and religious figures took part in the development and dissemination of this doctrine, however, according to M. Dnistryanskyi, it contains many contradictory provisions, which he mentions in his article. The author also writes that today revenge-seeking and expansionist doctrines have taken a significant place in the Russian political science and geopolitics. Those doctrines found favorable grounds in the Russian society disappointed by unsuccessful reforms and loss of the superstate status. The ideas of the USA’s unipolarity and hegemony further aggravated their aggressiveness. In these circumstances, the Eurasian doctrine got a new life, being eclectically supplemented by various, sometimes multifaceted, ideas, generally referred to as neo-Eurasianism. What should be understood by this, and how events in the opinion of different figures or geopoliticians will continue to develop, — the author writes in his article, emphasizing that “…despite the differences in methodological approaches, the ideas of greatpowerness and restoration of its previous superstate global status remain leading in Russia’s geopolitical thinking. Another fundamental point ignored by Russian politicians and geopoliticians in defining Russia’s place in the geopolitical organization of the world, is not understanding the fact that Ukraine’s independence is not an accidental coincidence, but an objective result of the entire historical process”.
We hope that readers will be interested in the article “Thoughts of Romania’s Foreign Policy on the Background of the European Foreign Policy” by Corneliu Pivariu, former President & CEO of INGEPO Consulting, major general (retired). The author prepared this article on the basis of the work of the Round Table on the ”Romania’s Role in Redefining the European Foreign Policy”, organized by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Romanian Senate. The very subtitles of the article tell about its content: “A Brief Description of the Current Geopolitical Situation and its Prospects”; “The European Union and its Foreign Policy”; “Romania and its Foreign Policy After Joining the EU and the Perspectives”. As do some extracts that show the author’s view of the current situation in his country.
“…Human society is in a evolutionary crisis, which the main international traditional players are not able yet to manage properly, and each one of them seeks to position itself as profitable as possible in anticipation of a new world order in a globalised world”.
“…The emergence of digitalisation with an extraordinary importance, means an era and a space that the states do not control any longer, will bring hard to foresee developments on the world’s stage”.
“…After joining the EU, Romania suffered an identity crisis in its foreign policy. We had “a cheap approach” folded on Germany’s and US’s approaches. Our attitude of permanently being concerned with getting a better appreciation by the EU’s leadership is a wrong one”.
No less interesting for readers of the journal will be the two articles that follow and are published under the same heading — “Geopolitics of European Countries”.
In the article “Greece in the New Geopolitical Realities”, its author Roman Kot describes in detail that geopolitical positioning of Greece in the international arena “is based on more than two thousand years of civilization tradition”. And he consistently cites facts that reflect its current state as a country that has been trying to cope with its economic problems with the help of the European Union for several decades. First of all, because “Greece is the most powerful EU member at the Organization’s southeastern flank” and because “pipelines have been laid or soon will be laid through the country, providing alternative sources of energy carriers supply for the European Union”.
The second article in this section, “China’s World Expansion and Its Consequences for Ukraine” written by Ivan Sichen, military and political expert, may interest the readership with some conclusions that are relevant to our country. Today’s successful policy of the PRC, when state support is combined with market-based methods of functioning of the national economy, has already resulted in China’s taking the second place (by its economic potential) after the United States and implementing a strategy to consolidate its position as a world-leading nation.
One of the main tools that helps China achieve these goals is its planned external expansion in a wide range of spheres. The author consistently describes the way the country is moving towards its goals, the economic methods that are being used, the amount of money allocated to various economic programs, and describes the approximate time when China will be able to achieve the desired if no unforeseen obstacles arise — like a coronavirus epidemic or natural disasters.
The author describes separately the political and economic relations between China and Russia. Using its superiority over Russia in economic, demographic and military spheres (except for the nuclear potential), China has accelerated its expansion on the Russian direction. Its actions are purely pragmatic, aimed at expanding access to Russia’s markets, technologies, transport infrastructure and natural resources. At this, the PRC invests only into spheres of the Russian economy which are of interest for China. The author writes, that as a result of its policy that can be called large-scale expansion, China is consistently turning Russia into both, a raw material appendage and its younger partner, more and more in line with Chinese plans, while the Chinese western border (at least in terms of expanding the scope of China’s influence) is gradually approaching the Ural Range.
Russia’s desperate attempts to present itself to the world as one of the major centres of power and for this end constantly interfering in Middle Eastern countries, are described in the article “Turkey vs Russia: Another Escalation of Confrontation in Syria”: “Conclusions and Forecasts” by Oleksiy Volovych, Ph.D. in History, who is an expert in the developments there, which is confirmed by his published studies. The topic is quite relevant, even if we take into consideration the bilateral relations of these countries, and pay attention to their participation in hostilities that unfolded in the same Syria, and the individual facts of military clashes in which Russian and Turkish troops were on opposite sides of the front. That is why O. Volovych mentions the facts from the history of Turkey-Russia relations, the first political steps of the Turkish and Russian leaderships in the 1990s, and after that he analyzes the more recent events of 2011 when rivalry began to escalate between the two countries. Of course, what we have seen in recent years is well-remembered, but the reasons for the actions of both countries are unlikely to be clear without professional approaches, especially those in the author’s arsenal. O. Volovych details the history of Turkey and Russia’s “plunging” into the Syrian conflict, describes the circumstances at that time at their domestic “Olymps”, and the leaders who played their own parties on the political board. But as for the conclusions, anyone who reads this article will be able to draw his/her own, as there are more than enough interesting examples of the events in Syria in general, and in its Idlib province in particular. To confirm this, let me cite a paragraph from the “Conclusions and Forecasts” of the article: “Latest developments in Syria confirm that the geopolitical confrontation between the USA, Russia, Iran and Turkey is continuing, and each of them has different interests in Syria. However, it seems that Ankara will continue to balance between Washington, Brussels and Moscow, alternately approaching and moving away from them, seeking benefits for itself”.
The next article, “Putin in the Crown of Coronavirus: a Referendum in Time of Epidemic” by Serhiy Polyovyk, political expert, seems to be continuing the theme of the previous article, although they share only one person — Russian President V. Putin. What I mean? The fact that a referendum was planned in Russia, following which the current President of the Russian Federation may again become a President in view of the amendments made to the Russian Constitution. The author does not even try to analyze the lawfulness of such a decision in the country where the Constitution can easily be “patched” and “sewn over” to legitimize Putin’s presidency. The author simply describes how in the Russian territory top rulers try to stay in power for a long time, seeking for any excuses. It is not necessary to resort to deep analysis, it is enough just to remember the previous century and those who were “in charge” of the Moscow Kremlin or St. Petersburg Winter Palace. The author mentions not only Stalin-Dzhugashvili, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin. He even reminds about Nicholas II, who also ruled Russia for more than two decades and hoped for a longer time if it had not been for the revolution… So, in Russia it is a kind of tradition to cling to the wheel of power and not let it go under any circumstances, as the current Russian President V. Putin wants to do. And to make it look more or less decently and be up to “trends of the time”, Russia decided to “refer to the opinion of the people”. But there is an unusual resemblance, or a coincidence here: at the coronation of Nicholas II more than one and a half thousand Russians died in a terrible stampede in the Khodynsky field, where they gathered to congratulate their tsar (which did not prevent the tsar from holding a great ball); and now the referendum coincides with the coronavirus epidemic, which also threatens the lives of Russians, even though quarantine measures have been introduced in Russia.
Under the “History of Geopolitics” heading, we continue to talk about the events of a hundred of years ago, when the Ukrainian lands and the Ukrainian people, who were ruled by Russia and Austria-Hungary, got united. This time, Ihor Datskiv, Doctor of Historical Sciences in his article “The UPR’s Military-Political Alliance with the WUPR as a Factor in the Struggle for Ukraine” describes the problems of diplomatic relations between the UPR Directory and the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic in 1917–1923. Step by step restoring those events and naming their direct participants who wanted to create a great Ukraine. But they failed to do so due to various events, among which the main reason, according to the author, was “the negative perception by the Entente, especially France, of Ukraine’s independence…”, since “they were relying on the restoration of their ally, White Russia, and did not recognize at all (except for Finland and Poland) any newly formed counties on the post-imperial territory”.
Serhiy Rudyuk, political expert, under the “Historical Figures of the Ukrainian Geopolitics” heading, this time describes an extraordinary contribution to domestic geopolitics made by Antin Sinyavskyi, who is known in the world as an “encyclopedist”. Here is just one paragraph from S. Rudyuk’s article “Ukraine Between Two Banks” from which you can judge about the personality of the scientist whose fate was no less tragic than of his science counterparts, but who did devote his life to Ukrainian science:
“While working fruitfully in public education, as well as in public and political life, Antin Stepanovych made a significant contribution to the development of the national historical science, to historical and geographical regional studies, archeology, archival science, history of Ukrainian science, geography, the theory and methodology of economic geography, geography of resources, population and economy of Ukraine and the world. He also stood at the origins of Ukrainian eugenics, destroyed in the 1930s by the totalitarian communist regime, but now relevant in view of the complex demographic situation in Ukraine caused by the adverse political, socio-economic and environmental circumstances of our recent past, including the Chornobyl disaster”.
Oleh Makhno
The journal is published in Ukrainian and English and is not duplicated on the website of the Independent Analytical Center for Geopolitical Studies “Borysfen Intel”.
You can buy a printed copy of the journal or electronic PDF-version.
