Suchergebnisse

The article is devoted to outlining and exploring a number of important stories of the history and present situation of the Crimea. The author turns to the study of Russian colonial policy on the peninsula. This policy resulted in the annihilation of the Crimean Tatar people and the deliberate settlement of Crimea by specific categories of population from "mainland" Russia, and subsequently - from Soviet Ukraine. The colonial pressure of the tsarist authorities was changed after 1917 for a short period with the assertion of Crimean Tatar national communism as a modernizing anti-colonial movement. However, from the second half of the 1930s, colonial policy on the peninsula resumed, and in 1944 it became embodied in the forced deportation of indigenous peoples, especially the Crimean Tatars. Up until the second half of the 1980s, the Kremlin tried not to allow the Crimean Tatars to return to their historical homeland at all. Only at the time of perestroika the authorities of the USSR agreed to allow such a return, but simultaneously tried to dispense it in every possible way. At the same time, the Kremlin launched a special operation aimed at removing Crimea from Ukrainian jurisdiction and securing its status as a Russian colony. Also this attempt failed because of the collapse of the USSR, but the goal remained unchanged; Russia's annexation of Crimea was carried out in 2014. The author analyzes the reasons that enable the Russian propaganda to influence a large part of the Crimean population effectively. The article illustrates the ineffective policy of official Kyiv to minimize the effects of Russian colonialism on the Crimean Peninsula in 1991-2014. The article also examines the newest stage of colonization of Crimea by Russia, which began in 2014. The author concludes that in recent years, new conflicting factors on the Crimean peninsula have been added to the traditional ones, and they all require further special studies.

The article analyzes the major milestones in history of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. The main attention is pay to the first century of colonial state of the Church, from the time when the Kyiv Metropolitanate was subordinated to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686 until the act of secularization of church lands in 1786. During that time the Ukrainian church elite defended her rights and interests in the conditions of Russian centralism. In particular, the attempts of higher clergy to preserve the traditional canonical jurisdiction of Church in Constantinople patriarchy as so as the actions of elite in protecting the interests of church institutions in the conditions of subordination to the Moscow Patriarchate (1686-1720) and advocacy of legal rights and property of the Orthodox Church in Synodal period (1721-1786) are considered in the abstract form. It is concluded that the century in Ukrainian history since the subordination of the Kyiv Metropolitanate of Moscow Patriarchate in 1686 to the act of secularization of church lands in 1786 marked the opposition of the Ukrainian ecclesiastical elite to Russian centralism and the attempt to defend traditional rights and interests of the Orthodox Church in various forms. The success of the struggle of the Ukrainian church elite for its rights directly depended on the interests and tastes of the Russian ruling circles, as well as on the support of the secular elite and the heads of the Hetmanate. It is noted that since the independence of Ukraine, a negotiation process between the three branches of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine - the UOC-MP, the UOC-KP, and the UAOC, has begun which was held with varying success. The lack of effective agreements on the creation of a single Ukrainian Local Orthodox Church was associated with different views of each of the parties of the principles of the unification process and their different understanding of canonicality. The significance of the agreement reached by the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko on the provision by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine Tomos of autocephaly and the creation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Local Church are stressed. This will begin a new stage in the history of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine - a return to free development
of the Stavropig of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The article analyzes the policy and practice of neo-imperialism in the Russian Federation, examines the specificity of Putinizm as a historical challenge posed by the post-Soviet post-colonial elites of the former USSR, in this case, the Ukrainian ones. Existing certain toleration of the culture of the colonizer, inherent in a large number of representatives of the Ukrainian elites, both political, and economic and creative, is one of the hallmarks of their unshakable post-colonialism, which, in turn, hinders the transformation of Ukraine into a modern European civilized state and a full-fledged modern nation. The need for a more determined opposition to the political and ideological influences of the modern Kremlin, its neo-imperial actions, theprovision of more effective and tougher resistance to the aggressor-Putin's Russia, which invaded Ukraine and imposed a hybrid war on its people, is not only a requirement that is relevant to self-preservation and consolidation Ukrainian independent nation, but also a persistent advice from the politicians of different countries who are committed to Ukraine and advanced analysts from the present-day Russia. Moreover, the real history of post-Soviet Ukraine and the post-Soviet Russia is a confirmation of the differences, including ideological, between the two peoples. At a time when post-colonial Ukraine was looking for itself in the labyrinths of many, and especially of the two-vectored, having finally ended on the road to a common European home, Russia tried to become democratic, but its efforts in this direction ended in defeat. Some of the contemporary Russian philosophers generally argue that the post-Soviet period in Russia went on an effort to return to the USSR. The Russian post-Soviet postcolonial period tried to get rid of their own "humiliation" and "to rise from their knees". A number of contemporary Russian intellectuals even argues that raising the people from their knees is the only real merit of the President of the Russian Federation VV. Putin before the Russian people. For example, the president of Lithuania Dalia Grybauskaitė has repeatedly expressed the opinion that Ukraine should take a much more resolute stand against the policies and actions of Putin's Russia. The ability to effectively confront an insidious aggressor - Putin's Russia - has become an exam today for Ukrainian elites regarding their viability and effectiveness.

The author considers in this article the problem of definition the characteristics of the non-independent status of Ukraine at the time of the Russian Empire and the USSR as one of the key for the Ukrainian philosophy of history, political science and politics. This problem is extremely important both from a theoretical and a practical point of view. According to the author, Ukraine really had the status of a colony in one form or another, although nominally in the USSR was one of the "sovereign republics". The article outlines the main factors that prevent scholars from unanimously recognizing this status, criticized those areas of Western Postcolonial Studies, where hypertrophied racial factors and the "overseas territories" factor, and, in addition, the Russian Empire is ignored as a colonial state. The part of those researchers, who deny the colonial status of Ukraine in the USSR, emphasize the aggressive nature of Bolshevism and the imperial policy of Moscow, but at the same time they are talking about "occupied Ukraine." For example, the main territory of Ukraine after the collapse of the Russian Empire was occupied by Bolshevik Russia. After the Second World War, when almost all of the Ukrainian lands were united under the USSR, they were given an occupation regime that existed until the 1990s. The author of the article believes that this approach is a simplification of the real situation. The period of occupation in Eastern Ukraine ended in 1921, when the Bolsheviks were forced to make certain concessions to the Ukrainians, and in Western Ukraine - in 1953, shortly after Stalin's death. There has come a long period of colonial exploitation of Ukrainian resources, including human, whose consequences considerably complicate the life of the restored independent Ukrainian state. Decolonization is an incomparably more complex and prolonged process than liberation from occupation and overcoming its consequences.

The contribution of Omeljan Pritsak (7.04.1919-29.05.2006) to the development of Ukrainian studies abroad as an important factor in consolidating world Ukrainians' unification of the post-colonial period and the international recognition of Ukrainian science has been investigated. The underlying reasons that prompted the scientist to become a researcher of Ukrainian history and to create the "Harvard miracle" were found out. The names of the scholars as well as the teachers of O. Pritsak that have affected his formation as a universal scientist and a patriot who faced up to the role of science as a framework of culture and development of nation and state were submitted. The scientist's institutional arrangements in the area of building up scientific basis for the disciplines in Ukrainian studies were analyzed, in particular the relations regarding formation of the three departments of Ukrainian studies within the structure of Harvard University that are as follows: Ukrainian History, Ukrainian Linguistics and Ukrainian Literature. It was revealed the principles of organizing the scientific Ukrainian school of O. Pritsak at Harvard University and the conceptual underpinnings of its activity that allowed for the attainment of a world-class level of development of Ukrainian humanities and its international recognition. Attention is drawn to the practice of organizing scientific activities by Ukrainian foreign scientists as an important factor in preserving Ukrainian identity and consolidating world Ukrainians' unification. The role of O. Pritsak in overcoming the isolation of Ukrainian humanitarian fundamental science and its integration into the world cultural context is shown. It was described the personality of the scientist as a theorist and a practitioner of establishing a national identity, a real patriot and the state creator, the author of the model of academic Ukrainian science outside of Ukraine. The attempts which have been made to transfer the experience of organizing academic research activities in the diaspora to the territory of a mainland Ukraine following the proclamation of independence in 1991 are noted.

The article analyzes the conflict between the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) and the totalitarian government and its projection on the contemporary ethno-religious processes in Ukraine. It is shown that the UAOC as a kind of modern ecclesiastical structure created under the heavy influence of the stormy events of the Ukrainian Revolution of 1917-1921, was Ukrainian in spirit and form, and brought up respect for national history and culture among Ukrainians and became an object of prosecution during the the Great Terror. It was revealed that the UAOC continued to be a Ukrainian religious organization and professed love for Ukraine, and its hierarchs and priests in their sermons called on believers to be Ukrainians, to respect their mother tongue, cultural history, customs and traditions also during the second half of the 1920th half of the 1930es. The UAOC was consistently persecuted and exterminated by the repressive structures of the USSR. It is shown that the Soviet authorities decided to destroy the UAOC finally, and ordered the repressive authorities to end the so-called «Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists» in the ranks once and for all, so that the «Clergy» case concerning the activities of the Ukrainian counter-revolutionary national organization was fabricated. It has been revealed that the totalitarian regime accused the arrested believing Ukrainians of counter-revolutionary actions, the revival of church and religious life in Ukraine, the promotion of their own candidates in the upcoming elections to the Local Councils in order to incorporate their people into important state bodies in order to use foreign powers in the case of foreign intervention. It is established that as a result of the complex and purposeful repression of the totalitarian regime in Ukraine, the UAOC ceased its Ukrainian-centric activity and its remnants were finally destroyed. It is proved that only from the late 1980es, when the decline of communist ideology began, the Christians of Ukraine were able to restore Ukrainian church organizations, including the UAOC. It is revealed that the heavy post-colonial and post-totalitarian legacy and the subversive anti-Ukrainian activities of the Russian Orthodox Church and the former KGB agents have contributed to the escalation of conflicts in Ukraine.