Suchergebnisse

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 article is devoted to the analysis of the Ukrainian diaspora organizations ethnocultural activity peculiarities in the Russian Federation (RF), the beginning of which is connected with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the proclamation of Ukraine"s independence (1991). The author connects their appearance with the growth of national consciousness, which was based on the idea of Ukraine"s independence. This idea has always been perceived extremely negatively and cautiously by the ruling class of Russia, as well as by a significant number of Russians, at all times when Ukrainians were under the imperial roof.
Even in the conditions of the total crisis at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, when the systemic disintegration of the USSR began, the Communist Party leadership constantly kept the "Ukrainian question" in view. This is confirmed, in particular, by the termination in 1989 of the magazine "Ukrainian Question", the publication of which was organized by the Moscow branch of the "Ukrainian Helsinki Union".
A similar fate befell a number of other Ukrainian communities already in modern Russia. Among them are the two largest all-Russian diaspora organizations of Ukrainians in Russia: the Union of Ukrainians of Russia (ESD) and the Federal National-Cultural Autonomy "Ukrainians of Russia" (FNKAUR). The analysis below shows that their activities were carried out in accordance with Russian legislation, in particular the Federal Law of Russia "On National and Cultural Autonomy" and was aimed at organizing and conducting ethnocultural work among Ukrainians. However, Putin's leadership found "evidence of political activity" from both ESD and FNKAUR and banned their activities by court order.
In fact, the main reasons for the author's cessation are the independence policy of modern Ukraine and the leaders of Ukrainian diasporas, their "disobedience" to pursue Russia's state imperial policy among Ukrainians, and their unwillingness to ignore the ethnocultural needs of Ukrainians.
Currently, there is no all-Russian organization of Ukrainians in Russia. Activists of the Ukrainian diaspora have repeatedly, and since 2014, tried to register at least one of them, but they are constantly denied on the grounds that they will allegedly "glorify Bandera" and negatively affect Ukrainian-Russian relations. In fact, the reason is different, namely, in the traditional imperialism not only of Russia's ruling class, but also of a significant number of Russians who do not see a Russian neo-empire without Ukraine. This Russian propaganda cliché penetrated deeply not only into the consciousness of Russians, but also distorted the national consciousness of a significant number of Ukrainians in Russia, who cease to identify themselves as Ukrainians. The article emphasizes that the deidentification of our compatriots is based on persecution, harassment, contempt, not only the Kremlin authorities, but also a significant number of Russians towards Ukrainians in Russia.

The article reveals the content of armed aggression and the legal status of the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine. Russia's aggression against Ukraine is considered in historical retrospect. Cases of torture and other ill-treatment on the temporarily occupied territories have been demonstrated in specific cases. The article examines the state of human rights on the temporarily occupied territories, namely the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment. Ways to prevent torture and ill-treatment in order to respect human rights and maintain the rule of law have been identified. The author determined that system of counteraction to aggression of Russia, which consists the political, legal and economic means, includes the prevention of torture and ill-treatment.The author notes that the adoption of UN GA resolutions and other documents of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe are new elements of increasing legal pressure on Russia. The submission of interstate applications by the Government of Ukraine to the European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation is one of the effective means of preventing torture. The article reveals the impact of expert and advocacy activities of non-governmental human rights organizations on the prevention of torture and the state of human rights on the temporarily occupied territories. It is noted that maintaining contacts with the citizens of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, constant informing, as well as obtaining information by the Ukrainian side on the state of human rights in the temporarily occupied territory provides an opportunity to partially prevent such violations and allow future reintegration of these territories. Keywords: prevention of torture, temporarily occupied territories, armed aggression, observance of human rights.

The article is devoted to the study of the biggest challenges, threats and dangers for modern Ukrainianness. The issue of challenges, threats and dangers facing Ukraine and Ukrainianness since 1991 is very relevant today. Scientists who work in the field of crisisology distinguish the concepts of «challenges», «threats», «dangers», «crises», «risks», «catastrophes», «collapse», «wreck», etc. The theoretical and methodological basis of our study is a combination of scientific potential of crisisology, conflictology and Ukrainian studies. Crisisology, conflictology and Ukrainian studies face the task of transdisciplinary understanding of the essence and severity of these challenges, threats and dangers, which are relevant in many areas such as military-defense, geopolitical, demographic, state-building, spiritual worldview, ecological, economics, energy, information, cultural and artistic, linguistic, moral and ethical, scientific, nation-building, educational, political and legal, social, territorial, technological, financial, etc. To these are added threats and dangers: 1) large-scale war with Russia; 2) total spread of COVID-19 in Ukraine; 3) the implementation of a new geostrategic course in Russia (called «geopolitical revenge»); 4) spreading the ideology of the «Russian world», intensifying new attempts by the Russian Federation to dismember Ukraine, supporting separatization and federalization of Ukraine; 5) possible escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian and Armenian-Azerbaijani conflicts, which could lead to a new global confrontation and even a world war; 6) ineffective fight against corruption in Ukraine; 7) the lack of a proper response from the authorities to the need to immediately end Russia's information and psychological war against Ukraine; 8) destruction of small and medium business and further financial and economic stratification of Ukrainian society; 9) procrastination with the solution of the poverty problem (in conditions when about 60% of Ukrainians are below the poverty line); 10) possible man-made disasters in Ukraine; 11) possible transformation of Ukraine from a subject into an object of international relations; 12) possible rejection of European integration; 13) discrediting the Orange Revolution and the Revolution of Dignity, in order to spread Russian narratives about the coup in Ukraine; 14) intensification of interfaith conflicts in Ukraine; 15) inadequate decision-making by incompetent authorities (threat of economic decline and large-scale financial crisis in Ukraine, possible change in Ukraine's vector of development, threat of capitulation, refusal of the authorities to resolve the «Ukrainian crisis» (which began after Russia's aggression and has become a factor influencing the security of Europe and the world) from the standpoint of Ukraine as a subject, not an object); 16) refusal to solve the problems of internally displaced persons; 17) possible «freezing» of the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict in order to further destabilize Ukraine; 18) strengthening of geopolitical and geoeconomic instability, intensification of intercivilizational and geopolitical confrontation in the world; 19) possible decline of democracy and rise of authoritarianism in Ukraine; 20) expansion of the border with Russia (in case of its absorption of Belarus); 21) possible disintegration of Ukrainian society and world Ukrainiannes; 22) further violation of international law by the Russian Federation; 23) exacerbation of the economic and migration crisis in Europe; 24) radicalization of part of the Islamic world; 25) due to the collapse of the USSR. The challenges, threats and dangers facing Ukrainians can unfold at the global, continental and national levels. Ukrainians must find adequate answers to modern challenges and mechanisms to minimize threats and dangers; ensure stable economic growth; to create a powerful system of national security, army and defense-industrial complex; find ways to ensure national interests in the current crisis; to develop optimal models for resolving the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict, reintegrating the population of the occupied territories and restoring the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

The insufficient degree of common identity at the state level, the distinct regional character of axiological and ideological differences in the Ukrainian society, direct interference with the internal affairs and imposition of common identifications on the part of other subjects of international relations considerably aggravates the threat of separatism, leads to the increase of joint identification of citizens with other societies and their political interests, which can lead to the territorial disintegration of the country. The annexation of Crimea by Russia became a significant destabilizing factor in the region, which sharpened ethnopolitical controversies on the peninsula. The most ethnically dissatisfied are Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians, who experience constant discrimination due to their ethnic origin, language, and religion from the state authorities of Crimea and Russian Federation. According to the population census, conducted by the Federal Service of State Statistics, subordinate to the Russian power, the peninsula has observed a considerable decrease of the Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar population: 15.8% of Ukrainians and 10.6% of Crimean Tatars. Russians constitute the majority: 68.3% comparing to 58.3% in 2001. Different sociological studies in Crimea claim annexation to cause the intensification of regional tendencies. Thus, according to the 2016 poll, 35% of the citizens identified themselves, first of all, as Crimeans and not as the citizens of Russia, which considerably exceeds average Russian figures. This dynamics does not obviously fit the ideas of the "Russian World"; thus, the peninsula observes the implementation of the "soft deportation" policy of Crimeans, substituted by Russians. The official data state that during four years 178 thousand people have migrated to Crimea, the prevailing majority of them being Russians. Although Ukraine does not have opportunities for implementing the legislation developed in the time period of 2014–2018 for the regulation of Crimean ethnopolitical disputes on the occupied peninsula, the development and implementation of the de-occupation and reintegration strategy of Crimea is crucial for the protection of Crimean ethnic communities' rights and restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

The article analyzes certain factors (external and internal) that affect the preservation of the national and cultural identity of Ukrainians living outside Ukraine. The key internal factor is national self-identification. Among the external factors are the following: ideological factor, value security, the religious factor, the factor of historical bias in foreign and Ukrainian media, the factor of manipulation of consciousness, the factor of aesthetic and value orientation, and others.
The need for more resolute opposition to the political and ideological influences of Russia, which invaded the territory of Ukraine and unleashed a hybrid war with its people, is highlighted. The authors of the article pay attention to the problems of the ontology of war and peace in the context of Ukraine"s experience in counteracting the Russian-Ukrainian war, which became a long-term factor of destructive influences on Ukrainian socio-economic, political, cultural, educational, and scientific activities.
Attention is drawn to the fact that the aggressive actions of the Russian Federation cause devastating consequences not only for Ukraine but also for the system of world order and international security, the main factor destabilizing the security environment in the regional environment of Ukraine.
In the article, the ways of preserving the national and cultural identity of the Ukrainian diaspora are revealed through strategic and security paradigms, with the inclusion of multilevel interaction of cognitive meanings. Particular attention is paid to the role of national-cultural identity and analysis of the cognitive dimension in hybrid conflicts.