Suchergebnisse

The history and features of the formation and development of the definition of the concept of "national minority" in the Ukrainian discourse and the influence of western political, legislative and research results have been analyzed in the article. The researcher has outlined the issues raised on the basis that Ukraine in 1991 ceased to be an integral part of the USSR and instead entered a new political, academic and legal reality. Accordingly, in this new state, the problem of determining the concept of "national minority" was actualized both as an actual situation and by attempts to change the design of the perception of ethno political reality, which was developed and implemented for decades within the framework of the Soviet Union. This was supplemented by the fact that in the Ukrainian scientific and political (and therefore legislative) environment − that at the time of the declaration of independence, and later − the issue of understanding and defining the category of "national minority" remained relevant, and it was significantly influenced primarily by Western or international legislation and research achievements. It has been stated that the definition of a "national minority" in the scientific environment is more developed in the Ukrainian case, which largely coincides with the inter- national understanding of the studied category, although with the Ukrainian local specifics. Instead, the legislative regulation of the concept of "national minority" in Ukraine was and still is insufficient, even despite the implementation of international law in this country. Therefore, in the Ukrainian case in this direction there is still a fairly wide range of opportunities for development and improvement of the situation.

The article analyzes the features of theorization, verification and structuring of regionalism and regionalization as a possible basis for politicization of ethnicity in Ukraine in 1991-2013, i.e. before the Russian-Ukrainian war, in particular in its local phase since 2014 and in large-scale phase since 2022.This is done at the background of the statement that aggressive Russia has always proceeded from the ideological and propagandistic (including instilled in Ukraine) assumption that Ukraine is not a united and consolidated country, because it has historically been characterized by regionalism and regionalization, which Russia expects should were the basis for the politicization of ethnicity and the ethnolinguistic issue in Ukraine in 1991-2013. However, as the political and military practice of 2014-2022 showed, this calculation turned out to be largely erroneous and incomparable with the electoral, religious, linguistic, ethnic and other socio-political cleavages that historically characterized (and significantly were overestimated by Russia) post-Soviet Ukraine. To demonstrate this, various approaches to understanding and organizing regionalism in Ukraine were proposed, including two-component, four-component, eight-component, etc., each of which was structured and characterized. The author argued that any attempt to use the idea of regionalization of Ukraine – especially in its twofold logic (divided into "West" and "East" or the Right Bank and the Left Bank relative to the Dnipro River) – in the real socio-political process in this country, but especially in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war, which began in 2014 and intensified on a large scale in 2022, failed. However, this does not mean that the issue of regionalism and regionalization in Ukraine should not be continued and developed, but in a completely different way and direction, especially in the context of European integration of this country.

The article is devoted to analyzing the essence of the phenomena of subjectivity and subjectification of national minorities. The research is prepared in a theoretical context, but on the basis of theorizing the real manifestations of subjectivity and subjectification of national minorities in Ukraine. The author revealed that the subjectification of national minorities is one of the prerequisites of their politicization, which takes place at such levels as idea, elite, society and state formation. As a result, it was argued that the problem of political subjectification of national minorities, including in Ukraine, as a procedural characteristic of the political system of society is quite complex and contradictory in nature, and therefore has no identical and consolidated recipes for solving.

The article considers and systematizes the meaning, functionality, optionality and consequences of political, as well as parliamentary opposition in the conditions of presidential and other options of non-parliamentary democracies in the world. It is stated that the opposition in the case of presidential or non-parliamentary democracies should be considered more broadly, but also in a slightly different sense than within parliamentary democracies. In particular, due to the fact that it is not an alternative to the executive, but is a manifestation or a mechanism of checks and balances in the conditions of a "rigid" separation of powers. In addition, it is found that the political opposition in presidentialism is determined by various institutional and political factors that can act as veto players, in particular by federal system, bicameral parliament, type of party system, qualities of the head of state, etc. This "broadens" the spectrum of political opposition in the case of presidential or non-parliamentary democracies, but does not strengthen parliamentary opposition in such political systems. Thus, it is proven that parliamentary opposition in non-parliamentary democracies is significantly more limited than in the case of parliamentary democracies, but in general political opposition here is much more "broader".

The article is dedicated to scientific analysis of theoretical principles and empirical experience of relationship between technocratic governance and modernization. The author proposed the conceptual definitions of technocracy, technocratic government, technocratic governance and modernization, singled out and detailed scenarios and features of positive/negative correlation between technocratic governance and modernization, discovered types of technocratic modernization.

The article is devoted to consideration and comparison of representativeness, political (electoral, parliamentary and governmental) successes and ideological positioning of anti-immigrant parties in the Visegrad countries. The researcher explained that the formation of anti-immigrant parties in the region has passed several stages that were conditioned with significant events of their development, but reckoned that the electoral successes of anti-immigrant parties are distinctive. It was found that anti-immigrant parties in the countries of Visegrad group ideo- logically are the products of post-materialistic society. The author also stated that the rhetoric of anti-immigrant parties in the region gained publicity and relevance after 2010, when the problems of migration policy of the European Union appeared to be the most dangerous. Generally speaking, it was argued that ideological issues of migration policy are the cornerstone of ideological and political positioning of anti-immigrant parties, but they are not sufficient to warrant their positioning as a separate ideological family of parties.

The article analyzes the preconditions, stages and peculiarities of the development and modernization of transport system, logistics and infrastructure in the countries of Visegrad Group, in particular from the period of Postcommunism to the present time. The factors that accelerated and slowed the development of transport system in the countries of the region were established. It is argued that the regulatory framework in the field of regulating the transport services in the Visegrad countries during the period from Postcommunism to the present time was harmonized with the legal requirements of the EU and profile international organizations that affected the modernization of transport system, logistics and infrastructure. However, transport systems, infrastructure and logistics in the countries of Visegrad Group are different, in particular in the categories of financial and investment components, condition of development and modernization, as well as the results obtained on the basis of this.

The article is devoted to analyzing the problem of the researches on the origin of Russians and Ukrainians as the indicator of politicization of Russian national minority in Ukraine. There are four basic schools of understanding of the proposed issues, i.e. Russophile, Sovietophile, Ukrainophile, as well as East-Slavonophile. The author motivated that scholars at each historical stage of development interpreted the problems studied in different ways, but always depending on the size of actual material, ideological positions of researchers, as well as on the prevailing political conditions at one time or another. It was confirmed that the formation of a real ethnos is impossible without the creation of a myth in the national context, although it was discovered that colonial attempt to erase historical memory is a process that leads to the loss of national identity and its assimilation in the center of imperial aspirations.

The article is devoted to analyzing the evolution of political and legal status of the Russian minority in the ethnonational legislation of state entities on the historical territory of Ukraine (1917–1990). The author found that the current (since 1991) peculiarities of the politicization of the Russian minority in Ukraine cannot be finalized without the knowledge of the parameters of its outlining in the evolutionary (before 1990) cut, in particular through the prism of aware- ness of the dynamics of changing of its political and legal status in the ethnonational legislation of state formations on the historical territory of Ukraine. It was established that the formation of the ethnopolitical legislation and the evolution of political and legal status of the Russian minority in the ethnonational legislation of state entities on the historical territory of Ukraine in 1917–1990 were step by step. They were initiated, then modified and even annulled by the fact of the formation and development of the constitutional and legal status of national minorities during the period of the Ukrainian People's Republic, Hetmanate of Pavlo Skoropadsky, the Directory of the Ukrainian People's Republic, the Western Ukrainian People's Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and only thereafter of the independent Ukraine. These milestones are the stages of the formation of political and legal status of the Russian minority in the context of the current ethnopolitical legislation of Ukraine.

The article is dedicated to analyzing the history, prerequisites and peculiarities of socio-political forms of subjectivation and politicization of the Russian ethnic community in Crimea before its annexation by Russia, in particular in the period of 1989–2013. The author found that the dawning of the subjectivation and politicization of the Russian ethnic community in Crimea and consequently the peculiar preparation for annexation of the peninsula were noticeable throughout the "twilight" period of the USSR and the post-Soviet development of Ukraine. They were mainly manifested in socio-political form, in particular in the design and development of public (non-governmental) organizations, which were engaged not only in social, historical, cultural and human rights character, but also in politics, and thus formed certain strategies for the attitude of a large part of the Crimean population (and in some places of the official institutions of Crimea) to the state authorities in Ukraine. It was revealed that Russian organizations of Crimea used a wide range of different approaches in cooperation with the Ukrainian authorities during the period up to 2013. On the one hand, almost all organizations remained in the legal field of Ukraine. Nevertheless, on the other hand, by 2013 and even earlier in Crimea there was a process of politicization of Russian ethnicity, even in the programs of activities of Russian organizations and communities of Crimea, since political motives prevailed over national and cultural ones. Therefore, different parties and organizations ideologically were ready to change the status of Crimea and received support for this in 2013–2014.

The article is dedicated to analyzing the problems of history and current state of subjectivation of the Russian minority in the context of bilingualism in Ukraine, in particular in theoretical and empirical contexts, especially at the background of events that took place in Ukraine after 2013-2014. It has been stated that bilingualism is really inherent in Ukraine, in particular in the format of coexistence of Ukrainian and Russian languages as the most wide- spread (in the same order) native languages and languages of everyday communication. At the same time, it has been observed that the language issues do not correspond to the ethnic issues and the composition of the population of Ukraine, since there are many more ethnic Ukrainians than Ukrainian language everyday speakers and users. On this basis, it has been proved that the language issue subjects and politicizes the Russian minority in Ukraine, even though the latter often denies the fact that language competition in a national space inevitably leads to a split in society on the basis of language. The main reason is that the balance between understanding the language as a symbol of identity and a means of communication is disturbed in Ukraine.

The article is dedicated to analyzing the peculiarities of ethnic identity, polarization and politicization of Russians in the post-Soviet space and as one of the factors of geopolitical positioning of some countries of the region. The author determined what was the essence of the policy of identity and polarization of Russians in the post-Soviet space (in particular, in the period of 1991-2000) and found out why in some countries it led to catastrophic consequences, while in others it did not prevent the change of geopolitical priorities and «separation» from the post-Soviet space. It was proved that ethnic identity, polarization and politicization of Russians in different post-Soviet countries were formed gradually and multi-vectored and were determined both by political and socio-economic factors and psychological effects.

The article is dedicated to analyzing the problem of formation and characteristics of Ukrainian and Russian identity at the background of ethnic relations in the independent Ukraine. The author revealed an array of problems that determine the confrontation of Russian and titular ethnic groups in Ukraine. The researcher argued that it is impossible to isolate the mechanisms of authentication and identity of Ukrainians and Russians in Ukraine, but instead it is useful to examine all the trends, which characterize ethnic relations in Ukraine, in depth.

The article is devoted to analyzing ethnonational reality and expectations in the context of the representation of Russian and other minorities in Ukraine in 1989–2017, in particular against the background of the annexation of the Crimea and occupation of the part of Donbas by Russia. It is revealed that ethnopolitical reality in Ukraine is a complicated and controversial issue due to the lack of reliable statistics on the population of Ukraine (as of the moment of analysis), as well as due to the fact that a significant part of the multinational population of Ukraine is outside the jurisdiction of the official Kyiv and thus beyond the scope of various studies. The author argued that there are several groups/cohorts of ethnic minorities in Ukraine, but the Russian one is most represented. At the same time, it was found that the relative and absolute number of ethnic Russians in Ukraine is decreasing. This is especially noticeable against the background of the processes of annexation of the Crimea and the occupation of part of the Donbas districts, by virtue of which it was recorded that as of 2017, Ukraine if did not be- come yet, then it becomes a mono-state power with the dominant ethnic core of the Ukrainian nation, bilingualism, significant percentage of representatives of other ethnic groups and polyconfessionalism. This corresponds to the construction of the concept of a civil/political nation in Ukraine.