Geopolitical «Borderliness» as a Factor in Ukraine’s Positioning in International Relations: the Experience of Ukrainian Discourse at the Beginning of the XXI Century

The article considers the problem of the phenomenon of geopolitical «borderliness» as a factor in the positioning of Ukraine in international relations within the Ukrainian scientific discourse of the early XXI century. The definition of the concept of geopolitical «borderliness» has been presented. It is shown that Ukraine is an average regional power, which is characterized by a «borderliness» geopolitical position. On the modern Ukrainian territory, the Euro-Atlantic, Eurasian, Islamic massif and, accordingly, the «super-ethnic frontiers» of the Western European, Slavic and Islamic civilizations intersect. Concepts of the genesis of ideological and sociocultural differences within Ukrainian society in the regional dimension have been characterized. It is substantiated that the foreign policy orientation of Ukraine has always been a derivative of the interaction of the Euro-Atlantic, Eurasian and Black Sea (South-Eastern) paradigms, which necessitates adherence to the «orientation priority» in international political positioning. It follows from this that it is expedient for the Ukrainian state to be guided by a non-bloc strategy. According to Ukrainian researchers, the entry of Ukraine into allied relations with one of the competing poles can lead to a strategic conflict with another center of power and negative consequences for Ukrainian statehood. To prevent this from happening, Ukraine was recommended to pursue a foreign policy on the basis of a neutral status and the principles of «optimal multi-vector approach». This was confirmed by the Ukrainian sociological research. The geopolitical and socio-cultural «borderliness» determines the «split» of Ukrainian society, which is manifested in the foreign policy orientations of residents of different regions. According to Ukrainian sociologists, traditionally the majority of the population of the West of Ukraine and about half of the Center supported the European integration vector. At the same time, about half of the inhabitants of the Center and the majority of the population of the South and East of Ukraine were supporters of the development of relations with Russia and the Eurasian vector of integration. As the only option for foreign policy positioning that would unite the Ukrainian society of different regions, the achievement of national agreement through a compromise was noted, this was possible only if Ukraine pursued a policy of neutrality and «optimal multi-vector approach».

1. Baranov A. V. Tasks of Russian Geopolitics in the Black Sea Region in the Context of a Special Military Operation in Ukraine. The Black Sea-Mediterranean Region in the Context of Russia’s National Interests: History, Politics, Culture. Materials of the International Scientific-Practical Conference. Resp. ed. V. V. Kasyanov A. V. Baranov. Krasnodar: Kuban State. Un-ty; 2022. P. 10–15. (In Russ.)

2. Zhiltsov S. S. Western Policy toward Ukraine: Outcomes and Challenges for Russia. Post-Soviet Issues. 2022;9(2):138–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24975/2313-8920-2022-9-2-138-150 (In Russ.)

3. Ivanov I. S. The Ukrainian Crisis through the Prism of International Relations. Moscow: NP RIAC; 2015. 208 p. (In Russ.)

4. Bratchik A. S., Kurylev K. P. The Process of Forming an Anti-Russian Policy in Ukraine: History and Modernity. Post-Soviet Studies. 2022;5(5):450–463. (In Russ.)

5. Zhiltsov S. S. Sources of Modern Ukrainian Nationalism. RUDN Newletters. Series: Politology. 2014;4:21–36. (In Russ.)

6. Zhiltsov S.S. History of the Ukrainian State Formation (Prior to the USSR Breakup). Post-Soviet Issues. 2018;5(3):309–328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24975/2313–8920–2018–5–3–309–328 (In Russ.)

7. Pashkovsky P. I. Genesis and Specificity of Social Contradictions in the Context of the Problem of Foreign Policy Positioning of Ukraine. Scientific Notes of V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Philosophy. Political Science. Culturology. 2018;4(3):137–146. (In Russ.)

8. Pashkovsky P. I. Integration Policy of Russia in the Post-Soviet Space (1991–2011). Kyiv: Interservice; 2012. 189 p. (In Russ.)

9. Pashkovsky P. I. «The Conflict of Generations» in the Context of Ukraine›s Foreign Policy Choice as a Manifestation of Personal Deprivation. Personal Deprivation: Legal, Psychological, Interdisciplinary Aspects: Collective Monograph. Rep. Ed. V. M. Melikhov, O. N. Makarenko, G. G. Egorov. Volgograd: LLC «Tsaritsyn Printing Company»; 2014. Vol. 2. P. 364–372. (In Russ.)

10. Shmelev B. A. The Reasons of the Confrontation between Russia and the Ukraine. Post-Soviet Issues. 2021;8(1):33–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24975/2313-8920-2021-8-1-33-53 (In Russ.).

11. Dergachev V. A. Geopolitical Dictionary-Reference. Kyiv: KST; 2009. 592 p. (In Russ.).

12. Kulchytsky S. V., Parakhonsky B. O. The Newest Ukrainian State-Building Process. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka; 2004. 504 p. (In Ukr.)

13. Nikiforov A. R. Cultural-Historical Analysis of the Ukrainian Political Space. Scientific Notes of Taurida National V.І. Vernadsky University. Series: Philosophy. Culturology. Political Sciences. Sociology. 2012;24(4):244–253. (In Russ.)

14. Geopolitical Orientations of the Population and the Security of Ukraine. According to the Sociologists. A. A. Belenok, A. I. Vishnyak, A. A. Zotkin [and others]. Comp. by N. A. Shulga. Kyiv: Businesspoligraph; 2009. 88 p. (In Russ.)

15. Kudryachenko A. I. Foreign Policy Challenges of Modern Ukraine. Strategic Priorities. 2007;4(5):172–177. (In Ukr.)

16. Kaminsky E. E. The World of Winners and Losers. International Relations and Ukrainian Perspective at the Beginning of the XXI Century. Kyiv: Free Press Center; 2008. 336 p. (In Ukr.)

17. Shergin S. A. Geopolitical Identity and Geopolitical Interests of Ukraine at the Present Stage of Globalization and Modernization. The «Yalta System» and the Modern World Order: Problems of Global and Regional Security. Materials of the International Scientific Conference (Crimea, Yalta, Livadia Palace-Museum, February 17–21, 2010). Coll. of Scient. ArtEd. by S. V. Yurchenko. Simferopol: Antiqua; 2010. P. 84–99. (In Russ.)

18. Yurchenko S. V. Ukraine: the Problem of Choosing a Foreign Policy Concept. Black Sea Region. History, Politics, Culture. Gen. Ed. by V. I. Kuzishchin. Sevastopol: Branch of Moscow State University in Sevastopol; 2010. Issue. IV. Series B. International Relations. P. 21–26. (In Russ.)

19. Arseenko A., Suimenko E. Foreign Political Orientations of the Population of Ukraine. Ukrainian Society 1992—2013. The State and Dynamics of Changes. Sociological Monitoring. Ed. by V. Vorona, M. Shulga. Kyiv: Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; 2013. pp. 141–154. (In Ukr.)

20. Ukraine: the Time of Choice. Kyiv: Razumkov Center, NOMOS Center, Center for Political-Legal Reforms; 2013. 40 p. (In Ukr.)

21. Kononov I. The Problem of National Security of Ukraine and Foreign Policy Choice of Ukrainian Elites. International Round Table «Security Problems of the Black Sea Region and the Neutral Status of Ukraine»: Collection of Materials. Ed. by A. Malgin. Simferopol: SONAT; 2008. P.130–137. (In Russ.)