Suchergebnisse

As part of scholarly reflection on the full-scale war in Ukraine, the article presents a retrospective review of trends in Russia's political system development compared to Ukraine over the past decade from the perspective of political subjectlessness. The author suggests that the consensus of the "silent majority" in Russian elites and society formed at the beginning of the war is caused by the fact that the aggressive attack on Ukraine was a pattern stage in the development of the Russian political system within a new phase of the neo-imperial cycle. Based on the synergetic paradigm, the article reveals the notion of political subjectlessness and the principle of resonance influences. The managing impact on the development processes of a nonlinear system can only be effective when it is consistent with the internal properties of that system. According to the author's findings, both political systems at the time of war are inherently subjectless: the political actions of the actors correspond to the internal state of the systems, which has been formed in the course of previous practices. Thus, as the empirical evidence proves, trends over the last decade in Russia suggest that the consolidation of V.Putin's personalist authoritarian regime has taken place in parallel with the growth of paternalism, public passivity and the destruction of horizontal ties. On the other hand, Ukrainian President V.Zelenskiy meets the demand of the network decentralised Ukrainian political system for a wartime leader. Provided that the formation of a new imperial cycle in contemporary Russia is a subjectless process, even if the scenario of a dictator change happens, the political system will continue to develop within this cycle. Given the short duration of aggressive imperial projects of the 20th century, despite certain subjective efforts of the Kremlin regime, the aggressive full-scale war against Ukraine may well lead to the beginning of the decline stage in the life cycle of neo-imperial project for Russia. ; В межах ...

As part of scholarly reflection on the full-scale war in Ukraine, the article presents a retrospective review of trends in Russia's political system development compared to Ukraine over the past decade from the perspective of political subjectlessness. The author suggests that the consensus of the "silent majority" in Russian elites and society formed at the beginning of the war is caused by the fact that the aggressive attack on Ukraine was a pattern stage in the development of the Russian political system within a new phase of the neo-imperial cycle. Based on the synergetic paradigm, the article reveals the notion of political subjectlessness and the principle of resonance influences. The managing impact on the development processes of a nonlinear system can only be effective when it is consistent with the internal properties of that system. According to the author's findings, both political systems at the time of war are inherently subjectless: the political actions of the actors correspond to the internal state of the systems, which has been formed in the course of previous practices. Thus, as the empirical evidence proves, trends over the last decade in Russia suggest that the consolidation of V.Putin's personalist authoritarian regime has taken place in parallel with the growth of paternalism, public passivity and the destruction of horizontal ties. On the other hand, Ukrainian President V.Zelenskiy meets the demand of the network decentralised Ukrainian political system for a wartime leader. Provided that the formation of a new imperial cycle in contemporary Russia is a subjectless process, even if the scenario of a dictator change happens, the political system will continue to develop within this cycle. Given the short duration of aggressive imperial projects of the 20th century, despite certain subjective efforts of the Kremlin regime, the aggressive full-scale war against Ukraine may well lead to the beginning of the decline stage in the life cycle of neo-imperial project for Russia. ; В межах ...

The article deals with the existing scientific approaches to the interpretation of the term "world order". Based on the analysis they are systematized into three key directions: institutional, ideological (axiological), and actor approach. Within the framework of the latter approach, there is a transition from the study of poles or centers of power to a statement of the fact of polycentricity of the new world order. For the completeness of the political science study of the world order the author considers it necessary to take into account besides the institutional design, configuration of actors, and value paradigm also the nature of society in which such an order is formed (post-information or network) and the state of globalization processes that determine the spatial characteristics of the world order (de-globalization, regionalization, and localization). Despite the difference in interpretations, different scientific schools are united by the thesis of the modern liberal world order crisis. The scientific debate revolves around the question of whether the world order is in a state of definite transition or whether the current non-equilibrium state can be considered as a new world order. The synergetic paradigm, or complexity theory, proposed as a research methodology, provides an answer. According to it, the formation of new world order is seen as a nonequilibrium nonlinear process defined by a dynamic synthesis of order and chaos. If there are specific political actors (institutions, interest groups, individuals) in the political space, their influence on the transformation of the political space is possible at bifurcation points and is predominantly random. This defines subjectlessness as a trend in the formation of new world order. From the point of view of finding a methodological basis for the research, the existing models of system dynamics, cyclic models, and simulation modeling were considered. It is determined that for the study of the new world order as a nonlinear dynamic complex system, it is advisable to analyze the megatrends of world politics and deconstruct them using the "method-assemblage" of a constantly changing reality. ; У статті розглянуті існуючі наукові підходи до інтерпретації терміну «світовий порядок». На підставі проведеного аналізу вони систематизовані до трьох ключових напрямків: інституційний, ідеологічний (аксіологічний) та акторний. В межах останнього підходу відбувається перехід від дослідження окремих полюсів чи центрів сили до констатації факту поліцентричності нового світового порядку. Для повноти політологічного дослідження світового порядку автор вважає за необхідне враховувати окрім інституційного дизайну, конфігурації акторів та ціннісної парадигми також характер суспільства, в якому формується такий порядок («пост-інформаційне» або «мережеве») та стан глобалізаційних процесів, що визначає просторові характеристики світопорядку (де-глобалізація, регіоналізація та локалізація). Попри різницю в інтерпретаціях, різні наукові школи поєднує теза щодо кризи сучасного ліберального світопорядку. Наукова дискусія розгортається навколо питання, чи перебуває світовий порядок у стані певного переходу, або поточний нерівноважний стан може вважатися новим світопорядком. Відповідь дозволяє надати синергетична парадигма, або теорія складності, що запропонована в якості методології дослідження. Відповідно до неї формування нового світового порядку розглядається як нерівноважний нелінійний процес, що визначається динамічним синтезом порядку та хаосу. При наявності у політичному просторі конкретних політичних акторів (інститути, групи інтересів, окремі індивіди), їх вплив на трансформацію політичного простору можливий у точках біфуркації та має переважно випадковий характер. Це визначає безсуб'єктність як тренд формування нового світопорядку. З точки зору пошуку методичних засад дослідження розглянуті існуючі моделі системної динаміки, циклічні моделі та імітаційне моделювання. Визначено, що для дослідження нового світопорядку як нелінійної динамічної складної системи, доцільними є моделі аналізу мегатрендів світової політики та їх деконструкція за допомогою «методу-збірки» реальності, що постійно змінюється.

The article deals with the existing scientific approaches to the interpretation of the term "world order". Based on the analysis they are systematized into three key directions: institutional, ideological (axiological), and actor approach. Within the framework of the latter approach, there is a transition from the study of poles or centers of power to a statement of the fact of polycentricity of the new world order. For the completeness of the political science study of the world order the author considers it necessary to take into account besides the institutional design, configuration of actors, and value paradigm also the nature of society in which such an order is formed (post-information or network) and the state of globalization processes that determine the spatial characteristics of the world order (de-globalization, regionalization, and localization). Despite the difference in interpretations, different scientific schools are united by the thesis of the modern liberal world order crisis. The scientific debate revolves around the question of whether the world order is in a state of definite transition or whether the current non-equilibrium state can be considered as a new world order. The synergetic paradigm, or complexity theory, proposed as a research methodology, provides an answer. According to it, the formation of new world order is seen as a nonequilibrium nonlinear process defined by a dynamic synthesis of order and chaos. If there are specific political actors (institutions, interest groups, individuals) in the political space, their influence on the transformation of the political space is possible at bifurcation points and is predominantly random. This defines subjectlessness as a trend in the formation of new world order. From the point of view of finding a methodological basis for the research, the existing models of system dynamics, cyclic models, and simulation modeling were considered. It is determined that for the study of the new world order as a nonlinear dynamic complex system, it is ...