Suchergebnisse

After the collapse of the USSR, the policy of the Western states towards Central Asia was focused on the issues linked to the expansion of trade and economic relations, gaining access to hydrocarbon resources of the regional countries and organizing their reliable export to foreign markets. In recent years, due to changes in technological development, the Western countries have increased their interest in rare-earth metals. Competition aimed at getting control over explored and prospective deposits is unfolding in different regions of the world. One of the promising areas with significant reserves of rare-earth metals is Central Asia. For this reason, in the last few years the USA, the EU, Great Britain and other countries have become increasingly interested in the region. The West is pursuing an active policy course towards Central Asian states. Such an approach is aimed not so much at developing the countries of the area as at expanding the presence of the West and reorienting the foreign policy course of the regional states towards the interests of non-regional actors. The ultimate goal of the Western states is to gain control over the deposits of rare-earth metals, which are located in Central Asia. The article covers the main directions of the policy the Western states apply in the region and underscores the mechanisms they use to promote their interests in gaining access to promising deposits of rare-earth metals. At the same time, the countries of the region generally welcome the Western policy, believing that it will attract additional investments into their economies. In turn, some influential and rich Western states along with companies they support exert pressure on Central Asian countries, seeking the most favorable conditions for themselves in the development of deposits and control over the resulting resources. The article concludes that Russia and China are competing with the Western states in Central Asia for getting access and gaining control over the deposits of rare-earth metals.

The aggravation of relations between Russia and Western countries in early 2022 has marked the formation of new supply chains for energy resources, particularly gas exports. Global energy transit is closely linked to fundamental problems in the world economy, which were aggravated during the coronavirus pandemic. Empirical evidence illustrates that new hydrocarbon supply chains have dramatically changed the balance of power in the global market. The reasons for this were the pricing policy as well as the supply and demand conditions in the market. Considering the gas market as a system of interrelated participants: producers and consumers, the study concludes that energy transit will be determined by the outcome of the economic competition between Russia and the West, as well as the speed of building the infrastructure necessary for the creation and transportation of liquefied natural gas. At the same time, the prospects for low-carbon energy are not so obvious. First of all, the high costs and the unwillingness of many countries to make significant investments hamper a transition. The study concludes that the restructuring of global energy supply chains is in the interests of some developed countries. In general, the current processes in the global energy sector represent a fundamental trend that is associated with the transition period of the world economy. The paper contributes to the knowledge by providing a comprehensive overview of the new processes in the energy sphere.

The article deals with the problem of water scarcity in the countries of Central Asia. Despite their efforts, the lack of water availability continues to persist. This increases tension in the inter-state relations in the region, as in recent years the countries increasingly face a shortage of water. Recently, Afghanistan has begun to influence the distribution of water resources in the region. Its actions are aimed at increasing abstraction of water resources from transboundary rivers of Central Asia. At the same time, Afghanistan has a right to act in this way. However, given the increasing shortage of water resources, Afghanistan's policy may lead to new conflicts and exacerbation of relations with the Central Asian states.

Since February 2022, the foreign policy of the Russian Federation has been carried out in a fundamentally new reality. Contradictions between Russia and Western states have escalated. The reason for the escalation is the policy of the West, which in the last decade has consistently taken steps aimed at changing the current system in the fi eld of maintaining global security and stability in international relations. The United States began to implement a course focused on preserving its dominant position in world politics and the economy. The political leadership of the United States strives to achieve these goals by putting pressure on their partners and geopolitical competitors, primarily Russia and China. Such US aspirations have provoked opposition from Russia, which has faced new challenges since March 2014 following the reunifi cation of Crimea with the Russian state. After that, the West radically revised its political course towards Russia and began to implement the sanctions policy. The pressure on Russia has led to growing tensions with the West, and more recently to open confrontation. The provocative measures taken to preserve the confl ict in the Donbass were supplemented by preparations for an armed confl ict between Ukraine and Russia. Moreover, the West purposefully pushed Kyiv to a military confl ict with the Russian Federation, which after February 2022 was forced to radically revise its approaches to foreign policy. The intensifi ed confrontation with the West has set the task for Russia to revise its foreign policy in many areas. In particular, Russia began to pursue a new energy and economic policy and to expand contacts with non-Western states. At the same time, geopolitical turbulence provides Russia with new opportunities. In the fi eld of international relations, the Russian Federation have a chance to reduce its dependence on the West, which for a long time acted as the main foreign policy partner. In this sense, Russia's relations with non-Western states open up new opportunities for defending its geopolitical positions.

The article examines the recently published documents on the priorities of the U.S. in the Arctic region. At the end of 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy published the document titled "Arctic Strategy", and the White House released "The New National Strategy for the Arctic Region". The latter strategic document presents the U.S. policy for the development of the Arctic over the next ten years. It addresses a number of issues, in particular rising geopolitical tension and the climate crisis, which significant effect the stable development of the Arctic re-gion. In the time of global rivalry between Russia and the West, the United States has stepped up its policy in the Arctic. The creation of these documents confirms the willingness of the United States to strengthen own presence in the region. The key directions of the U.S. policy in the Arctic, as well as areas of greatest interest to the USA are clearly defined in the strategic documents. The development of naval forces, construction of new ships, and further study of the climatic features of the Arctic region are addressed. Moreover, the documents express the U.S. firm intention to continue development of energy projects in the Arctic, and deepen cooperation with allies and partners by using multilateral mechanisms.

The change in the balance of power in Ukraine in February 2014 not only changed Ukraine's foreign policy course, but also marked the beginning of a new Western policy toward Kiev. Political support for the Ukrainian authorities was expanded. Ukraine's involvement in the sphere of Western interests intensified. Western countries used multilateral mechanisms to form new interstate relations with Ukraine. The Ukrainian army was actively modernized. The West supplied Western equipment. The U.S. and the EU have been closely following the conflict in Donbass. While publicly supporting a peaceful solution to the conflict, the West did not take real steps to resolve it. Advocating a violent solution to the conflict, nationalist forces became actively involved in the country's domestic politics. Kiev was encouraged to take steps to curtail trade and economic cooperation with Russia and to sever ties between businesses. The IMF was actively pursuing programs and consistently demanding reforms in the social and economic spheres. In the political sphere, the West supported Ukraine's policy, which led to the aggravation of political relations between the countries. After Vladimir Zelensky came to power in 2019, the West intensified its support for Kiev. Western authorities bet on a forceful solution to the conflict and provoked conflict between Ukraine and Russia. In February 2022, anticipating Ukraine's actions, Russia launched a special military operation. It called into question the further development of Ukraine and, at the same time, led to an adjustment of Western policy. The U.S. and EU stepped up military support for Kiev and significantly expanded financial aid. This policy of the West has created certain risks for Russia, which has entered the phase of acute geopolitical confrontation with the U.S. and the EU.

Over the past decades, the European gas market has attracted the attention of many extra-regional actors. The geopolitical rivalry for the European gas market intensified after an increase in shale gas production in the United States, which was interested in expanding its supply to Europe. The development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) sector intensified the struggle for the European gas market. The U.S., Qatar and Algeria, began to take steps to squeeze Russian gas out of Europe. This exacerbated the competition for the gas market in Europe, where LNG has already occupied a certain part. Moreover, in recent years, the U.S. and Qatar have developed ambitious plans aimed at increasing LNG production, expecting in the future to radically change the balance of power on the European market. To this end, the U.S. has launched a campaign against the Russian supplies. In addition, sanctions were imposed on the Nord Stream–2 gas pipeline, which prevented the project from starting operations. Being involved in the geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the United States, the EU countries supported the U.S. course, and proclaimed the policy of reducing dependence on Russian gas. In the long term, they want to give it up completely. This goal was prioritised in the EU gas policy. However, in 2021–2022 this strategy rapidly increased prices on the gas market in Europe, which negatively impacted European economies. Despite the economic losses, the EU did not abandon its course of refusing supplies of hydrocarbon resources from Russia.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on international relations and world politics. The global and national economies, social sphere and culture were influenced by the pandemic. The global pandemic impact has led to a reassessment of the future development of the modern world.Every country in the world has proposed its own way to address the challenges that occurred with the start of the pandemic and its consequences. At the first stage, the centrepiece of proposed measures was mainly focused on maintaining economic sustainability and providing social support. The emphasis was placed on fostering individual sectors of the economy, which has demonstrated its effectiveness. However, many states were balancing social stability and economic growth, which was hit by the imposed lockdowns. The steps taken have yielded shortterm positives in different countries. At the same time, they demonstrated the limited resources and low efficiency of measures to overcome the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is significant that many countries achieved socio-political stability by increasing the debt burden. In the first phase of the pandemic, such approach was assessed as optimal. In general, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the vulnerability and weakness of the modern states to combat new challenges. First of all, this concerned economic policy, social issues and the labor market.Many states have drawn positives from the crisis by adjusting political approaches and economic decisions. The current experience has made it possible to transform social policy, support employment, and adjust approaches to labor market regulation. However, the task, targeted at finding optimal solutions from the government, respecting the interests of business, maintaining social stability and the possibilities of the budgetary sphere, is still high on the agenda.The lack of effective mechanisms for multilateral cooperation among world states in tackling global challenges, which include the COVID-19 pandemic, stimulated many countries to seek solutions aimed at protecting their own interests. All countries were forced to implement their foreign policy, build bilateral and multilateral relations in fundamentally new conditions. First of all, internal security and political stability were on the agenda.The global pandemic raised the issue of the prospects for the development of international relations and world politics. Amid relations between states, a tendency to searching for new partners capable of providing support in a difficult economic situation is on its way. This opened up new opportunities for them, making for strengthening their positions. On the other hand, the world's leading countries are still numbed by their past approaches to shaping relations within the framework of the existing system of international relations. The sanctions policy and the confrontational approach are still actively implemented by Western countries in the policies towards Russia and China. This strengthens confrontational relations between countries and maintains dividing lines in world politics.The COVID-19 pandemic has given new impetus to debates on how to tackle global challenges. The climate agenda, problems of water resources, migration have previously been in the sharp focus of many states. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a revision of the role of states in settling global problems, having the effectiveness of international institutions high on the agenda.The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected the development of the global economy, which faced various challenges. Developing economies were most stricken by the pandemic. In turn, the industrialized states were able to channel significant aid, which allowed them to smooth the negative impact of the pandemic. However, the global economic recovery has been uneven as a cosequence of political decisions, states' economic capacities in certain regions.

The article relates to the geopolitical rivalry in the Arctic unwound in the recent years between the United States and Russia. Both countries claim leading positions here considering the Arctic as a region where the commercial production of hydrocarbon resources is eventually possible. Climate change breaks new ground for the shipping development in the Arctic. It stands to reason that Russia and the United States have redoubled their attention to the Arctic merchant shipping development and are enhancing naval vessels commissioning. Russia and the United States have made significant progress in this regard. However, changes in world politics, growth of contradictions in the world economy have led to stepping up policy of Russia and the United States in the Arctic. To defend their interests, Russia and the United States adopted a series of documents indicating the Arctic policy avenues. The article examines both Russia and the United States approaches to the policy implementation in the Arctic, as well as the future challenges facing the countries. The author finds that the geopolitical rivalry between the leading Arctic states for the Arctic will continue. Being unable to establish commercial production in the Arctic, Russia and the United States will implement the increased focus on the military sphere. The creation of the necessary military infrastructure, the construction of new vessels will become a key objective for both states. In addition, Russia and the United States will expand support for Arctic shipbuilding, which is seen as the main instrument for promoting their economic interests.

Russia and non-regional States have recently shown fresh interest in the countries of the former Soviet Union. The rivalry between Russia and the United States for the post-Soviet territory, beginning after the collapse of the USSR, has broken new ground. Russia considers the post-Soviet space as an area of vital interests. Economic and political relations with its neighbors, the internal political situation in the former Soviet Republics have a direct impact on the development of Russia. These determinants can explain the renewed interest in Eurasian integration and an integration project — the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). However, the USA hardly welcomes such aspirations of Russia and the support for the integration project on the part of some post-Soviet countries. The American side has no interest in the newly emerging regional centers of influence in the post-Soviet space, regarding this as a threat to its interests. Countering the development of Eurasian integration and strengthening the EAEU influence is the focus of US policy in this regard. The EAEU member countries are consistently taking steps to develop integration despite obstacles from the West. The long-term objectives, defined in various documents by the countries, should put them on a new path of economic cooperation. Eurasian integration faces a number of difficulties along with the successes, achieved since the creation of the EAEU. The world economy problems, in addition to internal ones, exert a considerable influence. They intensified after the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, which negatively affected the development of the EAEU countries. The internal political problems faced by the EAEU countries adversely affect integration. The internal political crisis in Belarus, beginning in the later 2020, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh, worsened internal political struggle in Armenia and Kyrgyzstan are the factors that influenced the work of the EAEU last year and early 2021. Nevertheless, economic difficulties and political events in specific countries, the pursuit of non-regional states to influence the elites of the former Soviet states have not altered the foreign policy priorities of the EAEU member states.

The collapse of the USSR pushed Ukraine for pursuing a policy aimed at expanding cooperation with Western countries. Ukraine placed great emphasis on economic cooperation with the EU and United States, as well as financial assistance from Western countries and international financial organizations, primarily the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Such interest in collaborating with the IMF was driven by the needs of the Ukrainian economy to solve current social and economic problems, maintain the political stability for the elites in power. The increased focus of the Ukrainian side on external financial assistance related to the Ukraine failure to address economic challenges, appeared after the collapse of the USSR, and initiate a new foreign economic policy. The inefficiency of the economy was aggravated by clear-cut governmental policy deficiency. At the same time, Ukraine continued to open up the country to Western capital. This weakened Ukraine's position on world markets, negatively affected its economic potential. Hence, Ukraine went in for cooperation with the IMF to gain financial assistance and tackle its economic problems. On the other hand, the IMF showed great attention to Ukraine, granting funds to Ukraine as a part of cooperation programs but setting economic conditions and political demands. The ongoing borrowing policy has led to Ukraine foreign debt increase, triggering the dependence of the Ukrainian authorities on the IMF. In recent years, under the new President of Ukraine V. Zelensky, Ukraine has proceeded with the policy of cooperation with the IMF.

The year of 2020 started a new chapter in the development of former-Soviet countries. The coronavirus epidemic, which began in the Chinese city of Wuhan, has spread to affect all countries throughout the world, including the countries of the former Soviet Union. Its influence has already affected the economic and social development of the countries in the post-Soviet space. Closing borders, stopping tourism, and imposing severe restrictions on transport services were the first measures that contributed to reducing the incidence rates. At the same time, these measures affected bilateral and multilateral trade and economic relations among the countries of the post-Soviet space.All countries of the post-Soviet space have taken steps to allocate additional funds to combat coronavirus. Ad hoc funds were formed, the review of budget expenditures and revenues began. However, in fact in the first few months the countries faced economic distress, the overcoming of which could take considerable time.The coronavirus epidemic is taking place against the backdrop of global economic crisis and a sharp drop in oil prices. Economic development models based on increasing consumption without economic growth, increasing the level of external and internal debt have shown their insolvency. In these conditions, the countries of the post-Soviet space, which are highly dependent on the external factor, have also experienced significant economic hardships.Finally, the «price warfare» in the oil market has a strong influence. The United States and Saudi Arabia's attempts to achieve dominance in the oil market, by displacing Russia from it, as well, have had a destabilizing impact on the world oil market. This factor has had a direct impact on those former-Soviet countries that produce and export hydrocarbon resources.In general, the coronavirus epidemic, taking place against the backdrop of global economic challenges and oil competition, will have a negative impact on the economic and political development of former-Soviet countries. The impact of the epidemic, its consequences, will affect the former-Soviet countries for many years to come.

In recent years, the countries of the Caspian region have sought to expand regional cooperation in energy and transport spheres. For a long time, these areas of cooperation were not being developed, which negatively affected the regional economy. The revision of the existing approaches of regional countries to cooperation is dictated by the growth of problems of economic development of each country. Non-regional states have a continuing interest in the Caspian region. First of all, they are interested in projects aimed at diversifying the supply of hydrocarbon resources from the region to foreign markets. In turn, the construction of new export pipelines is considered by the countries of the Caspian region as a way of strengthening their geopolitical positions and realising socio-economic projects. New pipelines not only can create additional opportunities for the delivery of oil and gas from the region to foreign markets, but also can radically change the balance of power. This explains the increased attention to the issues of production and export of hydrocarbon resources.At the same time, the revision of the energy policy of the regional countries, which began in the 1990s, did not reduce their dependence on non-regional states that act as final consumers or transit countries for oil and gas. The construction of new pipelines broke Russia's monopoly over the export of hydrocarbon resources from the regional countries to foreign markets. However, the decline of Russian influence was compensated by Iran and China, which got the opportunity to influence the regional countries through pricing mechanisms and volumes of purchased hydrocarbon raw materials. For this reason, the regional countries are in favor of a further increase in the number of new pipelines, believing that their construction will expand opportunities for oil and gas exports and will reduce dependence on neighboring states.

The changeover of the ruling of the modern Ukrainian territory between East and West had lasted for around 800 years beginning from the Mongol-Tatar invasion. It was that time when Batu Khan defeated Ancient Rus that the present territory of Ukraine came under complete and absolute ruling of the Tatar East. In the 16th century as a part of Lithuania Ukraine was included into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and then passed under the rule of the Polish magnates, under the yoke of the Western Polish civilization. In 1569 the Union of Lublin was signed that formalized the accession of the Ukrainian territory to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the period from the 10th to the 19th centuries there was no such state as Ukraine on the world political map. In the 10th century some part of the territory of present Ukraine was taken by Kievan Rus, in the 13th century — by Golden Horde, in the 14th-15th centuries — by Lithuania, Golden Horde and Russia. In the next centuries the territory of Ukraine was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, Poland and Russia. And only in 1918 the state of Ukraine appeared on the political map.Single Soviet Ukraine created by Bolsheviks did not present any internal cultural and language unity as it was always shared by different empires being the hostile and irreconcilable centers of force in Europe — the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russian Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire.In 1917-1920 about dozens of different republics were established in the territory of Ukraine. They were isolated within the borders of their formations. Accordingly, it may be said that in 1917-1920 Ukraine presented a mosaic of different formations which were often formed due to ambitions of some scoundrels and political adventurers striving to get to power and to become the leader of a state. But only the tough policy of Bolsheviks aimed to prevent the disintegration process permitted Ukraine to preserve its territory. After its election the Supreme Council started preparation of the Draft Declaration of Ukraine State Sovereignty simultaneously with the Draft Law on Ukraine State Sovereignty. Both drafts were considered in May 1990. After their discussion it was decided to develop the Draft Declaration of State Sovereignty.On July 16, 1990 the Ukrainian Parliament after long discussions adopted the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine by majority voting. This declaration which did not change and substitute the Constitution of Ukrainian SSR became a very important document for establishment of the Ukrainian statehood having laid the basis for the future Constitution of Ukraine.The concept of the new Constitution of Ukraine envisaged the establishment of the presidential republic. As a result, in June 1991 the laws «On Establishment of the Office of President of Ukrainian SSR with Making Alterations and Additions in the Constitution», «On President of Ukrainian SSR" and "On Election of President of Ukrainian SSR». The office of president was established to strengthen the vertical of executive power and to make it in the future independent of executive power of union bodies. The law assigned broad authorities to the president. Thus, the president acquired the right to cancel the decisions of the USSR bodies of executive power in the territory of Ukrainian SSR if they contradicted its constitution.By mid-1991 the legislative base was created in Ukraine which, in fact, made it an independent state as the laws adopted in 1990 and in the first half of 1991 brought out Ukraine from subordination to the USSR powers. The single economic, political and military space of the USSR practically ceased to exist. By this time Ukraine subordinated only nominally to union authorities. On August 24 the Extraordinary Meeting of Supreme Rada passed the Act on Declaration of Independence of Ukraine. That time it was also decided to conduct on December 01 the republican referendum to confirm the Act of Independence. This was done with a view to demonstrate to the union authorities that the Ukrainian people were endeavoring to become independent, thus, making legitimate the Act of Independence. After becoming independent in 1991 Ukraine entered the new stage of its development. The regional system of Ukraine revealed two clear poles — Donbass and Galichina which determined the country's development for decades ahead.