The Next Issue of the “BINTEL” Journal Has Been Published
The next, third issue of this year’s journal of geopolitical analytics “Bintel” offers a wide range of materials that directly relate to current issues including events not only in Ukraine but also those taking place in neighbouring countries — Belarus, Moldova and Romania. And while our readers are already familiar with some of the authors whose works previously were published in our journal, including Romanian geopolitician Corneliu Pivariu, now this galaxy is joined by his colleagues — Belarusian Valeriy Karbalevich, Ukrainians Artem Fylypenko and Victor Petrov. Of course, they offer not only to consider topics that fall entirely under the definition of “relevant”, but also to reflect on them, determining further development of events directly related to geopolitics.
Traditionally, the issue opens with an article by Victor Hvozd, President of the “Borysfen Intel” Centre, “Ukrainian Neoconservatism. History and the Present”. The author proposes to consider Ukraine as one of the factors on which the development of the situation in Central and Eastern Europe and the Black Sea region depends, from the 14th century to the present day. And to confirm his observations and conclusions, he gives a sufficient number of examples from Ukrainian history, which should not only be paid attention to, but must be taken into consideration in the process of our modern state-building. The article may be read on the website of the “Borysfen Intel” Centre — for our admirers who did not have the opportunity to subscribe to the journal.
We draw your attention to the work of another of our regular authors, a member of the editorial board of “Bintel” Myroslav Dnistryanskyi. His article, like all previous ones, is relevant, but this time it shows that the author expands the thematic “spectrum”, inviting the reader to recall the role of our Ukrainian intelligentsia for the Ukrainian statehood. By and large, they, like nobody else, understood the importance of statehood for the Ukrainian people, trying to say their important word in the revival of Ukraine as a European state and laying the scientific and political foundations of what is now called geopolitics.
The article is published under the title “Geopolitical Ideas and Views of Ukrainian Writers of the 19th – First Half of the 20th Century”. The very first sentence of M. Dnistryanskyi’s article defines its subject and focuses the reader’s attention on it, because the relevance for us today is undeniable: “At the beginning of the 19th century, in the ethnically Ukrainian lands, which were divided between two empires, Russia and Austria, there began a rather active ethnocultural and ethnopolitical upsurge, which manifested itself in the formation of literature in the native language, collection and processing of folklore materials, interest to the history and traditions of Ukrainian people. Ukrainian historical and political freethinking of that time was most reflected in the literary-historical treatise “History of the Rus” (author unknown), which for the first time in modern times considered the history of Ukraine (Rus) as the history of a separate original people, different from Russian, and stressed its continuity from times of Kyivan Rus to the period of the Cossacks”.
And here is how begins article “What Will the Future Look Like?”, by our regular author, Corneliu Pivariu, Romanian Military and Political Expert, Major General (Retired): “…After the emergence of the pandemic caused by COVID-19 (the virus code-named SARS-CoV2 was anyway heralded at least since 2017) it has become clearer that, beside the state players represented by states, other powers with global geopolitical interests, too, operate, some of them much more powerful than numerous states, and which, due to the present international architecture, are not internationally represented and therefore they cannot act openly for promoting their specific interests. …In fact, their movements were visible already in the second half of the 20th century when the big oil corporations made their presence felt, then that of the armament industry corporations, and, during the last decades, the medical and pharmaceutical corporations (known generically as Big Pharma) as well as the corporations of the information field, the great social platforms, which won already important international positions although unrecognized by the current international architecture where the evolution of the human society is discussed, negotiated and, sometimes, decided”.
These and other observations and conclusions of the author attract attention from the first lines of the article and do not let go until its end, and then the reader has a desire to read C. Pivariu’s other published works, where he writes about the current development of the struggle for the world’s supremacy is unfolding in a quite new way since the formulas that were tried proved to be unviable and are being replaced with different ones of which one would not have thought in the past. C. Pivariu also gives a brief description of the policies of some countries playing the “first violin” on the world stage, and expresses his vision of what such “violinists” will soon have to do in response to current problems, among which the pandemic will come first. These are countries such as China, the United States, Russia, Germany, which now has its influence on the EU, as well as India, Turkey and, of course, Romania, the events in which are most important for the author and about the future of which he is not very optimistic.
“Revolution Against Lukashenko” is the title of an article written by the known Belarusian political scientist Valeriy Karbalevich. Not long ago You could hear his thoughts in a program on one of our central TV channels on the events in the Republic of Belarus, where the population has been opposing the results of the presidential election for three months now. The author of the article, describing the protests of Belarusians, points out what exactly provoked their resistance and why our neighbors had such an “unusual situation”. Of course, all the reasons for this seem to lie on the surface, but was it possible not only to predict this course of events, but also to prevent their development? And what prompted the protests in such a seemingly calm country, which is called the only one in Europe with planned economic development? Was it really just the unfair counting of votes at polling stations? But would such protests have arisen if someone other than A. Lukashenko, who is for too long sitting in the presidency? Here is how the author V. Karbalevich explains when assessing what is happening in his homeland: “Elections under an authoritarian regime are an interesting political phenomenon that manifests itself in different ways, even in states with similar regimes. Their function is not to provide a real choice of the people from several options, but to legitimize the current ruling regime. …The authoritarian state created by A. Lukashenko, by definition, cannot be legal. His first victim turned out to be law, which has become a completely redundant element here. It ceased to be a regulator of social relations”.
According to V. Karbalevich, the main reason for the revolutionary explosion is that the Belarusian social model, created by A. Lukashenko a quarter of a century ago, has exhausted its resources and has become a brake on development. The authoritarian regime has deprived the society of any influence on power. Elections have long turned into an imitation. A. Lukashenko, like any other authoritarian ruler, had long ago lost touch with the society and has been behaving more and more inadequately. That is why the presidential election was the catalyst for an explosion of general discontent. During the election campaign, a scheme was formed: “The people against Lukashenko”. In the course of the elections, the moods dominating in the society, got expressed by the formula: “Anybody, but not Lukashenko”, when voters were ready to elect anybody, but “Batka”, regardless of all his attempts to persuade his compatriots that he is dedicated to the Belarusian society.
And at the end of his article, V. Karbalevich concludes that “…Even if the Belarusian revolution ends in defeat, it will still go down in history and will have a huge impact on the further development of the country. If nothing else, revolutions don’t go unnoticed. During these three months, a civil society was actually formed, the final process of the formation of the Belarusian nation took place… The Belarusian society is on the eve of great changes”.
No less interesting for readers may be another article prepared for the journal by the known political expert Artem Fylypenko. The very title “Transdniestrian Lessons for Ukraine” makes it clear what the author means, especially now, when the events on the on the other side of our state are quite reminiscent of the phenomena of thirty years ago: the armed separation of Transdniestria from Moldova and direct participation in those events of certain forces subordinated first of all to the Kremlin. It is enough to cite the subtitles of the article to understand its full content — “Why is the Transdniestrian settlement considered the most relevant for Ukraine?”, “What is the secret of political “longevity” of Transdniestria?”, “Ukraine and the Transdniestrian conflict: are double standards appropriate?”…
Let me point out that the author often publishes his studies on Transdniestria, participates in discussions, defending his position and vision of the development of such important events for the Ukrainian state, compares them and even predicts the consequences if such events are, to put it mildly, spontaneous. Here is just one of the examples given in this article: “Declaring the need to preserve Moldova’s territorial integrity, Ukraine sometimes either supported Russia’s proposal or put forward very ambiguous initiatives. An example is “Yushchenko Plan”, also known as “7 Steps to Democracy”, which called on the Transdniestrian administration to create “the necessary conditions for the development of democracy, civil society and a multiparty system in the region”, as well as “according the legal conditions of the status of Transdniestria” to hold “free and democratic elections to the Supreme Council of Transdniestria as a representative body of the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova” under the supervision of the EU, OSCE, USA and other representatives of the international community”.
Without trying to further develop the idea in this paragraph, one can only ask whether the authors of such “seven steps” when we have to defend our independence and integrity could not have foreseen the current situation in our Donbas? A. Fylypenko, in particular, stresses in his article: “Ukraine’s attitude to Transdniestria has changed greatly since the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian war. The presence of a Russian military contingent in the unrecognized republic gave grounds to consider this enclave as a threat to Ukraine’s national security”. By publishing this material on the pages of the journal, the our team is sure that the attentive reader will find many answers to urgent questions for Ukrainian society. Because one way or another, without their solution, there can be no civilized development of Ukraine.
This, by the way, is discussed in another article by political expert Viktor Petrov “Clarification of Guidelines in the Changing Security Environment”, the subject of which is the new version of the National Security Strategy of Ukraine. In fact, as the author writes, this is an important normative act, which systematically reflects the principles of guaranteeing national security in the main spheres of life of the state and society. And although many speeches or remarks have appeared after its publication, its new version quite objectively estimates the security situation, declaring adequate approaches to ensuring the national security of Ukraine and around it. Anybody interested in the Strategy, has the opportunity not only to read the views of the author of the article, but also to analyze them. Especially when it is placed on the “Borysfen Intel” Centre’s website.
Finally, a few words about another article in this issue. Under the heading, which has become traditional, “Historical Figures of the Ukrainian Geopolitics”, our author Serhiy Rudyuk reminds the readers about Ukrainian geopolitician, socio-political figure, Lev Bykovskyi, whose life was an example of Ukrainian patriotism and dedication to his people. Dmytro Dontsov once said about such people: “They had their great goal, their idea, which they wanted to instill in their country, they had a big format goal, which, as a formative factor, was giving life to their living space…”.
L. Bykovskyi’s biography is worth being studied to find his characteristic features inherent in real Ukrainians, who always aspired to have their own Ukrainian state, and aspiring, tried to make all their human efforts in this matter. L. Bykovsky himself managed to study in respectable institutions of the then Russian capital — St. Petersburg, fight on the fronts of the First World War, and serve for the UPR at its Foreign Ministry, and emigrated to Europe, where he actively developed Ukrainian geopolitical thought. All this is briefly here, but detailed in the article “The Black Sea is a Life-Giving Space of Ukraine”. The title defines what the author means when talking about the organizer of geopolitical research studies and institutes, domestic politicians and scientists in exile set about developing the theoretical basis of the future independent Ukraine “…from Syan to Don, from the swamps of Polissya to the Black Sea”, believing that “…the Black Sea space is a vital space of Ukraine… Ukraine is the major among the Black Sea countries in terms of its space, wealth and energy of the people. This is the content of the Black Sea doctrine, intended to serve Ukrainian foreign policy”.
By the way, such works are relevant nowadays too. S. Rudyuk believes that scientists and military figures, including the experienced General O. Lavreniuk, not only turn to them, but also try to develop them in their works. An authoritative military with a great combat experience in his book “The Military Doctrine and Problems of Its Implementation” writes: “Geopolitical interests of Ukraine are determined by its geographical location and geographical and natural conditions that determine national interests. In this sense, Ukraine’s geopolitical interests have a very wide range, almost global. Thus, Ukraine’s interests are in the Black Sea and in the Black Sea basin — the Bosporus and Dardanelles, access to the Mediterranean Sea; Ukraine’s interests are connected with the Suez Canal and Gibraltar, the possibility of ships entering the Indian and Atlantic oceans and the states whose land is washed by the waters of these oceans, we are interested in the northern seas of the Arctic and in the Antarctic”. (Journal of State Building, 11, 1995). Let’s agree, such views, based on the works of Ukrainian outstanding figures of the late 19th – early 20th centuries, are relevant today, when Ukraine has to overcome many obstacles in proving its right to exist as a full-fledged state.
The author of the article writes that ensuring such large-scale state interests requires appropriate forces and efforts. He cites the point of view of Lev Bykovsky, who in turn quoted Ivan Ingulets: the future independent Ukraine must have not only an army but also a powerful navy, whose task will not only preserve the inviolability of the borders of the Ukrainian state, not only have a decisive influence on the Bosphorus-Dardanelles policy, but will also perform tasks in the World Ocean.
L. Bykovskyi stressed that “…Ukrainian ocean affairs are not an uncertain ghost of the future, but the ultimate problem of the present… The study of these problems by the above method will enrich our science, will expand our horizons of thought and show us in some places the true path to their practical settlement. At the same time, it will help us to sooner develop the All-Ukrainian Great Power Oceanic Worldview, which is a precondition for resolving these problems by our own measures and in our interests…This may at last result in complete getting rid of the complex of the inferior among many Ukrainian figures in various spheres of knowledge and activity”.
So we ask you to pick up the next issue of the journal and read for yourselves the opinions and conclusions of the authors of the articles.
Oleh Makhno, Editor-in-Chief
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 through our website.
