Suchergebnisse

Досліджуються базові системні утворення у сфері національної безпеки і обо- рони – система національної безпеки та система забезпечення національної без- пеки. Визначаються їх взаємна субординація, суб'єктна та об'єктна складові, со- ціально-політична роль. Вказується на складний характер становлення обох систем, недостатнє розуміння політичними лідерами та громадянами їх структури та призначення. ; Problem setting. National Security of Ukraine as a state of protection of the vital in- terests of man, society and the state is based on two main systems – the national security system it self and the system of ensuring national security. At the same time, the majority of Ukrainian citizens have insufficient knowledge about the systemic principles of na- tional security. This has negative consequences for practical activities on ensuring the national security of Ukraine. Further scientific research in this area and their bringing to the general public of specialists involved in the sphere of national security will become necessary.Recent research and publications analysis. The issues of the national security of Ukraine (including the systemic principles of its provision) have been raised in the writings of numerous authors. Among them, in particular, are V. Gorbulin, O. Vlаsyuk, V. Goro- venko, О. Dzoban, B. Parаhonsky, G. Sytnik, M. Trebin. The specialists of the National Academy of Public Administration under the President of Ukraine (Y. Melnyk, V .Abramov,S. Borisyevich, A. Datsyuk, V. Kyrylenko, V. Mandragelia, R. Marutyan, etc.) work fruit- fully in this area. At the same time, an urgent need is an increase in author's teams that are concerned with the national security of Ukraine in terms of Russia's aggression against Ukraine and the transformation of national security in the key factor of Ukraine's state survival.Paper objective. To reveal the essence, structure, target direction of the national se- curity system and the system of ensuring national security. Determine the socio-political subordination of these systems. Determine the subjects of national security, which are partof both systems. Determine the normative and legal support of the activities on ensuring the national security of Ukraine.Paper main body. The study of the national security sphere of any country requires the use of methodological tools, built on the basis of systematic analysis of complex social processes. Below we will discuss two key systems directly involved in securing society, the state, the citizen: a) the national security system and b) the system of ensuring na- tional security. The national security system is an open, dynamic social system, the main purpose of which is to create conditions for the realization of national interests, to ensure the integrity of society and the state. Its constituent elements are the nation, national interests, national values, activities for their protection, national security as a state of protection of national interests, as well as the challenges, threats and dangers of destruc- tive influence.The activities of society, state, citizens in protecting (defending, promoting) national interests takes place in various spheres, the total number of which depends on the spe- cific historical conditions of the country's development, the format of the challenges and dangers facing it, the experience of security activities, etc. In the Ukrainian legislation, the areas of ensuring national security recognized internal political, foreign policy, mili- tary, social, humanitarian, economic, scientific and technological, informational, environ- mental, as well as the areas of state security, civil protection of the population, security of the state border. Thus, Ukraine's national security is the protection of state sovereignty, territorial integrity, democratic constitutional order and other national interests of Ukraine from real and potential threats.Depending on the tasks that need to be resolved in the process of securing national security, a formal part of the national security and the national security system (public authorities, security forces, etc.) and an informal part (civil society institutions, citizens, mass media, etc.) can be singled out.Depending on the subject of national security, which plays a leading role in the analysis of national security factors and when adopting the appropriate management decision, one can consider the national, state and public subsystems of the national secu- rity and the national security system, which mutually complement and control in a certain way one another.Under the system of ensuring the national security of Ukraine in the broad sense, one should understand a set of theoretical and methodological, regulatory, informational and analytical, organizational and managerial, intelligence, counterintelligence, operational search, personnel, scientific and technical, resource and other measures aimed at minimi- zation threats and dangers, guaranteeing the development of national interests, spiritual and material well-being of the people of Ukraine and the effective functioning of the system of national security of Ukraine.The main purpose of the system of ensuring the national security of Ukraine is to achieve the goals of national security. The main function of this system is to ensure bal- anced coexistence of the interests of the individual, society and the state through monitor- ing, diagnosis, detection and identification, prevention and termination, minimization and neutralization of the internal and external threats and threats.The subjects of ensuring the national security of Ukraine are the President of Ukraine, the Parliament of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, ministries and other central executive authorities, the Na- tional Bank of Ukraine, courts of general jurisdiction, the Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, local state administrations and local self-government bodies, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Security Service of Ukraine, the External Intelligence Service of Ukraine, the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine and other officers formations formed in accordance with the laws of Ukraine; bodies and units of civil protection, as well as citizens of Ukraine, associations of citizens. These bodies are part of both systems.In this regard, with regard to the power structures of the state used the term "military organization of the state", which in modern terms changed to the security and defense sector. March 14, 2016, the Decree of the President of Ukraine approved the Concept of Development of the Security and Defense Sector of Ukraine. Another public-management innovation is the proposal to periodically conduct a comprehensive review of the security and defense sector.Case for the implementation of the decisions. Success depends on the activity and purpose of the state and society during the practical implementation of security-defense strategies and programs.Conclusions of the research. The system of national security in Ukraine demonstrates the wide-ranging causal relationships between the nation and the need to secure its secu- rity in a modern globalized world that continuously generates diverse challenges, threats and dangers. This system, based on national interests and values, is a more complex en- tity than a system of ensuring national security. This explains the complexity of the reflec- tion of the systemic principles of the national security of Ukraine from the side of not only the general population, but also the existing politics.Both systems are in a state of dynamic development. They did not acquire the final forms. This could not have happened due to the complexity of the processes of nation- building in modern Ukraine, the lack of certainty of national interests, the superficial nature of their legal consolidation, and the lack of experience (traditions) of ensuring the national security of independent Ukraine.Legislation on national security and defense of Ukraine is gaining more and more Western character. An indication of this is the active use of the term «security and defense sector» instead of the "military organization of the state". ; Исследуются базовые системные образования в сфере национальной безопас- ности и обороны – система национальной безопасности и система обеспечения национальной безопасности. Определяются их взаимная субординация, субъектная и объектная составляющие, социально-политическая роль. Указывается на слож- ный характер становления обеих систем, недостаточное понимание политически- ми лидерами и гражданами их структуры и назначения.

Problem setting. Socio-political stability has universal universal historical significance, since it belongs to the basic qualitative characteristics of the states since their emergence. The rhetoric of stabilization is inherent in both totalitarian (authoritarian) and democratic countries. In the first case, on the basis of it, the political system is preserved, which makes it impossible (significantly weakens) the mechanisms of rotation of political elites and leaders, which is approximated to society in the form of slowing down of sociogenesis, slowing the pace of development of the country, stagnation of certain social fragments. In the second case, the public authorities demonstrate their ability to democratically secure stable signs of the development of basic public spheres and institutions over their volatile antipodes. The consequences of this are state-building constructivism (accumulation of positive results), successful implementation of modernization strategies, strengthening the country's position in international relations, creating systemic preconditions for the progressive development of society, etc.One of the main negative stimuli against socio-political stability is the multifaceted threats that have both objective leaks (social, natural, technogenic) and subjective determinants. Their purpose is loosening, weakening public institutions, reducing the effectiveness of the state, the depletion of the economy and more. At the same time, the tendencies of diversity of threats, their mutual influence and integration («hybridization») become quite obvious. This requires a timely prediction ofprocesses of state response to threats to socio-political stability, based on appropriate models.Analysis of recent research and publications on the topic. The essence, content of socio-political stability, ways of its achievement in different power formats were investigated in the works of V. Volynets, I. Kiananka, V. Koliukh, Y. Kondratyev, V. Lagutin, Y. Levenets, Maksimova, Y. Matsievsky, O. Rudenko, M. Shapovalenko and others. A close relationship between the problems of state response to threats to socio-political stability and national security is present in the works of V. Abramov, S. Borysevich, O. Vlasyuk, V. Gorbulin, A. Datsyuk, T. Zaporozhets, V. Kyrylenko, V. Mandragelja, R. Marutyan, Y. Melnyk, Mordas, O. Poshedin, M. Razumny, A. Semenchenko, V. Smolyanyuk, O. Sukhodolja, M. Trebin, M. Shevchenko, L. Shypilova. In Ukraine, the scientific achievements of Western authors on various aspects of social and political stability are actively used (F. Beli, K. Dauding, F. Kimber, D. Jaworski, E. Zimmerman, D. Siring, A. Lipphart, P. Swenson,L. Hurwitz, K. Eyck, R. Kimber, and others). At the same time, the high dynamics of the escalation of threats in Ukraine requires further understanding of the issues of response to them, which implies a comprehensive use of the capabilities of both the state and civil society.Paper objective. To reveal the sequence of actions of the Ukrainian state on the issues of building up the Military organization as a mechanism for responding to the threats to socio-political stability. Compare the military organization of the state and the security and defense sector in the context of the effectiveness of their response to threats. Build state response models for threats to socio-political stability based on the Military Organization of the State and the security and defense sector. Identify the benefits of the security and defense sector in the context of responding to threats to socio-political stability.Paper main body. The problem of ensuring socio-political stability is present in the basic normative legal acts that have determined the nature and orientation of the development of the state-making process. This is evidenced by the constitutional acts of Ukraine, including the 1996 Constitution (as amended). A new step towards identifying threats to socio-political stability and identifying areas of state response to them has been the development ofa regulatory framework on national security. The catalystfor the rapid quantitative increase and exacerbation of threats addressed to Ukraine in recent years is the policy of the Russian Federation, which occupied part of the territory of Ukraine (Crimea, Sevastopol) and unleashed military aggression in the east of Ukraine. A hybrid war in its Russian execution against Ukraine and other democratic states, it is expedient to consider as a mechanism of continuous production of threats in the basic social spheres, first of all, political and economic.In order to counter threats to national security (including socio-political stability), Ukraine, since the 1990s, created the Military Organization of the State. On this basis, a conservative model of responding to threats to socio-political stability emerged. The main feature of this model is the ability of the head of state (usually the president) to determine almost individually the time, place, format, purpose of using the constituents of the Military Organization of the state in order to stabilize the situation. The way to achieve socio-political stability through the use of the Military Organization of the State in the interests of the governing entity should be defined as «directive» or «police». On the basis of the existence of numerous objective and subjective problems, the formation of a full- fledged Military Organization of the State in Ukraine did not occur during 1991-2014. The «check on war», which began in 2014 in the form of a series of armed conflicts in the east of Ukraine, was not maintained by the Military Organization of the Ukrainian State.The counterpart of the military organization of the state (and at the same time its democratic antithesis) in the western countries is the security and defense sector. The Ukrainian government has recognized the need to create a security and defense sector in accordance with Western standards. The Presidential Decree of March 14, 2016 approved the Concept of development of the security and defense sector of Ukraine. An important feature of the Concept is its ability to «create conditions for widespread involvement of non-governmental organizations in the implementation of tasks in the interests ofnational security and defense of the state». These are civil society structures that have their ownpotential to address security and defense issues. This was strongly evidenced by the events of2014-2018, when the motives of defending the state were decisive in the activities of volunteer battalions, volunteers, local self-defense forces and others non-governmental organizations working against Russian regular troops and separatist armed forces.Legislation recognizes democratic civil control exercised by the President of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, executive authorities and local self-government by the mechanism of democratic civilian control on the activity of the security and defense sector. Judicial and public control are added to this.Based on the security and defense sector, it is advisable to build an adaptive model of state response to threats to socio-political stability. The security and defense sector allows the use of a flexible format by state and non-state structures to address a specific stabilization challenge. The way to achieve socio-political stability through the use of the security and defense sector in the interests of both the state and the whole of society is appropriate to define as self-sufficient, democratic or liberal.Conclusions. On the basis of the generalization of the experience of different states, it is advisable to distinguish conservative (directive, repressive-restrictive) and adaptive (liberal-democratic, self-organizing) ways of state response to threats to socio-political stability. The institutional «watershed» between them is the state's reliance on civil society for ensuring socio-political stability. Modern Ukraine is in a state of transition from a conservative to an adaptive model of countering threats to socio-political stability, the total number of which is steadily increasing. This is evidenced by the choice of government in favor of the security and defense sector, which should completely supersede the national security and defense approaches built on the basis of the Military Organization of the State. There has been some slowdown in the practice of development of the security and defense sector of Ukraine in recent years. In such circumstances, Ukraine urgently needs other government documents (target law, doctrines, strategies, etc.) that will ensure the irreversibility of the process of establishing the security and defense sector in accordance with Western standards. Delaying this process minimizes Ukraine's chances of full membership in Western security and defense structures. ; Рассмотрены основные модели государственного реагирования на угрозы об­щественно-политической стабильности - консервативная и адаптивная. Указано на принципиальное различие между этими моделями - степень вовлечения гражданского общества в деятельность по противодействию угрозам. Доказано постепенный переход Украины от консервативной к адаптивной модели реагиро­вания на разноплановые угрозы общественно-политической стабильности. ; Розглянуто основні моделі державного реагування на загрози суспільно-політич­ній стабільності - консервативну та адаптивну. Вказано на принципову відмінність між цими моделями - ступінь залучення громадянського суспільства у діяльність щодо протидії загрозам. Доведено поступовий перехід України від консервативної до адаптивної моделі реагування на різнопланові загрози суспільно-політичній ста­більності.

Problem setting. Socio-political stability has universal universal historical significance, since it belongs to the basic qualitative characteristics of the states since their emergence. The rhetoric of stabilization is inherent in both totalitarian (authoritarian) and democratic countries. In the first case, on the basis of it, the political system is preserved, which makes it impossible (significantly weakens) the mechanisms of rotation of political elites and leaders, which is approximated to society in the form of slowing down of sociogenesis, slowing the pace of development of the country, stagnation of certain social fragments. In the second case, the public authorities demonstrate their ability to democratically secure stable signs of the development of basic public spheres and institutions over their volatile antipodes. The consequences of this are state-building constructivism (accumulation of positive results), successful implementation of modernization strategies, strengthening the country's position in international relations, creating systemic preconditions for the progressive development of society, etc.One of the main negative stimuli against socio-political stability is the multifaceted threats that have both objective leaks (social, natural, technogenic) and subjective determinants. Their purpose is loosening, weakening public institutions, reducing the effectiveness of the state, the depletion of the economy and more. At the same time, the tendencies of diversity of threats, their mutual influence and integration («hybridization») become quite obvious. This requires a timely prediction ofprocesses of state response to threats to socio-political stability, based on appropriate models.Analysis of recent research and publications on the topic. The essence, content of socio-political stability, ways of its achievement in different power formats were investigated in the works of V. Volynets, I. Kiananka, V. Koliukh, Y. Kondratyev, V. Lagutin, Y. Levenets, Maksimova, Y. Matsievsky, O. Rudenko, M. Shapovalenko and others. A close relationship between the problems of state response to threats to socio-political stability and national security is present in the works of V. Abramov, S. Borysevich, O. Vlasyuk, V. Gorbulin, A. Datsyuk, T. Zaporozhets, V. Kyrylenko, V. Mandragelja, R. Marutyan, Y. Melnyk, Mordas, O. Poshedin, M. Razumny, A. Semenchenko, V. Smolyanyuk, O. Sukhodolja, M. Trebin, M. Shevchenko, L. Shypilova. In Ukraine, the scientific achievements of Western authors on various aspects of social and political stability are actively used (F. Beli, K. Dauding, F. Kimber, D. Jaworski, E. Zimmerman, D. Siring, A. Lipphart, P. Swenson,L. Hurwitz, K. Eyck, R. Kimber, and others). At the same time, the high dynamics of the escalation of threats in Ukraine requires further understanding of the issues of response to them, which implies a comprehensive use of the capabilities of both the state and civil society.Paper objective. To reveal the sequence of actions of the Ukrainian state on the issues of building up the Military organization as a mechanism for responding to the threats to socio-political stability. Compare the military organization of the state and the security and defense sector in the context of the effectiveness of their response to threats. Build state response models for threats to socio-political stability based on the Military Organization of the State and the security and defense sector. Identify the benefits of the security and defense sector in the context of responding to threats to socio-political stability.Paper main body. The problem of ensuring socio-political stability is present in the basic normative legal acts that have determined the nature and orientation of the development of the state-making process. This is evidenced by the constitutional acts of Ukraine, including the 1996 Constitution (as amended). A new step towards identifying threats to socio-political stability and identifying areas of state response to them has been the development ofa regulatory framework on national security. The catalystfor the rapid quantitative increase and exacerbation of threats addressed to Ukraine in recent years is the policy of the Russian Federation, which occupied part of the territory of Ukraine (Crimea, Sevastopol) and unleashed military aggression in the east of Ukraine. A hybrid war in its Russian execution against Ukraine and other democratic states, it is expedient to consider as a mechanism of continuous production of threats in the basic social spheres, first of all, political and economic.In order to counter threats to national security (including socio-political stability), Ukraine, since the 1990s, created the Military Organization of the State. On this basis, a conservative model of responding to threats to socio-political stability emerged. The main feature of this model is the ability of the head of state (usually the president) to determine almost individually the time, place, format, purpose of using the constituents of the Military Organization of the state in order to stabilize the situation. The way to achieve socio-political stability through the use of the Military Organization of the State in the interests of the governing entity should be defined as «directive» or «police». On the basis of the existence of numerous objective and subjective problems, the formation of a full- fledged Military Organization of the State in Ukraine did not occur during 1991-2014. The «check on war», which began in 2014 in the form of a series of armed conflicts in the east of Ukraine, was not maintained by the Military Organization of the Ukrainian State.The counterpart of the military organization of the state (and at the same time its democratic antithesis) in the western countries is the security and defense sector. The Ukrainian government has recognized the need to create a security and defense sector in accordance with Western standards. The Presidential Decree of March 14, 2016 approved the Concept of development of the security and defense sector of Ukraine. An important feature of the Concept is its ability to «create conditions for widespread involvement of non-governmental organizations in the implementation of tasks in the interests ofnational security and defense of the state». These are civil society structures that have their ownpotential to address security and defense issues. This was strongly evidenced by the events of2014-2018, when the motives of defending the state were decisive in the activities of volunteer battalions, volunteers, local self-defense forces and others non-governmental organizations working against Russian regular troops and separatist armed forces.Legislation recognizes democratic civil control exercised by the President of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, executive authorities and local self-government by the mechanism of democratic civilian control on the activity of the security and defense sector. Judicial and public control are added to this.Based on the security and defense sector, it is advisable to build an adaptive model of state response to threats to socio-political stability. The security and defense sector allows the use of a flexible format by state and non-state structures to address a specific stabilization challenge. The way to achieve socio-political stability through the use of the security and defense sector in the interests of both the state and the whole of society is appropriate to define as self-sufficient, democratic or liberal.Conclusions. On the basis of the generalization of the experience of different states, it is advisable to distinguish conservative (directive, repressive-restrictive) and adaptive (liberal-democratic, self-organizing) ways of state response to threats to socio-political stability. The institutional «watershed» between them is the state's reliance on civil society for ensuring socio-political stability. Modern Ukraine is in a state of transition from a conservative to an adaptive model of countering threats to socio-political stability, the total number of which is steadily increasing. This is evidenced by the choice of government in favor of the security and defense sector, which should completely supersede the national security and defense approaches built on the basis of the Military Organization of the State. There has been some slowdown in the practice of development of the security and defense sector of Ukraine in recent years. In such circumstances, Ukraine urgently needs other government documents (target law, doctrines, strategies, etc.) that will ensure the irreversibility of the process of establishing the security and defense sector in accordance with Western standards. Delaying this process minimizes Ukraine's chances of full membership in Western security and defense structures. ; Рассмотрены основные модели государственного реагирования на угрозы об­щественно-политической стабильности - консервативная и адаптивная. Указано на принципиальное различие между этими моделями - степень вовлечения гражданского общества в деятельность по противодействию угрозам. Доказано постепенный переход Украины от консервативной к адаптивной модели реагиро­вания на разноплановые угрозы общественно-политической стабильности. ; Розглянуто основні моделі державного реагування на загрози суспільно-політич­ній стабільності - консервативну та адаптивну. Вказано на принципову відмінність між цими моделями - ступінь залучення громадянського суспільства у діяльність щодо протидії загрозам. Доведено поступовий перехід України від консервативної до адаптивної моделі реагування на різнопланові загрози суспільно-політичній ста­більності.

Problem setting. Transformational changes in political systems are an essential condition for their development. However, if in a peaceful time, diverse political transformations take place on evolutionary principles, then during the war they are significantly accelerated. The hybrid war has brought new emphasis to the transformation of political systems. Such transformations take place practically throughout the political system, but in order to classify the most important transformations, it is expedient to distinguish its key subsystems - institutional, normative, functional, communicative, spiritual and cultural.Analysis of recent research and publications on the topic. In the works of O. Babkina, V. Bebik, V. Gaponenko, V. Gorbatenko, I. Gorokhovsky, V. Kotygorenko, V. Kafarsky, N. Khoma, I. Kresinoy, A. Kudryachenko, V Masic, Y. Matsievsky, P. Mironenko, M. Mikhalchenko, I. Onischenko, E. Pereguda, T. Poyarkova, M. Primush, O. Romanyuk,F. Rudich, V. Soldatenko, O. Stoiko, T. Tkachenko, G. Zelenko, and other native. The researchers have considered in detail the processes of formation and development of political systems. In the works of O. Demenko, V. Dubov, M. Gonchar, V. Gorbulin,A. Litvinenko, V. Mandrageli, B. Parakhonsky, M. Rozumnyj, L. Smola, M. Trebin,G. avorskaya the problems of the hybrid war in the context of determining its essence, content, orientation, purpose, as well as the specifics of deployment and flow. Scientific developments by F. Cappen, F. Hoffman, R. Glenn, R. Newson, J. Sherr reveal the views of Western specialists on hybrid wars. At the same time, studies that examine the transformation of political systems under the influence of the hybrid war in Ukrainian political science is clearly not enough.Paper objective. Indicate the existence of a large number of definitions of the hybrid war, none of which does not claim to epistemological absolute. Analyze the transformational processes in the main subsystems of the political system of society (institutional, normative, functional, communicative, spiritual and cultural) in the context of a hybrid war. Indicate the innovative moments of the development ofpolitical systems under the influence of hybrid offensive (defense). Emphasize the special role of the state as the basic political institution on the organization of the vital functions of the political system in the conditions of active hybrid influences of the opposite side (enemy state).Paper main body. A hybrid war affects all subsystems of the political system ofsociety - institutional, normative, functional, communicative, spiritual and cultural (cultural- ideological). However, there is a significant difference in the depth and intensity of such influence.There is a fundamental influence of the hybrid war on the state as the basic political institution of society, which is the main actor of military-political relations. Destruction (weakening) of the enemy state was and remains the goal ofany war, including hybrid war. Under these conditions, the state is faced with the need to create versatile variants of the power response to hybrid hazards. As a rule, special government bodies are created with additional powers. There are large-scale institutional transformations within the security and defense sector. For the conduct of hostilities, the forces of reserve are involved. Full or partial mobilization is announced. New parts and connections are deployed. Additional elements of the security and defense sector can be created.There are changes in the regulatory legal subsystem. Orders of the supreme commander- in-chief, directives of the supreme commander-in-chief, decisions of military-civilian administrations, etc. may be added to traditional normative legal acts (laws, decrees, resolutions, decisions, orders).The functional subsystem is also in a state of massive changes. The authorities deliberately urge all patriotic forces to strengthen armed resistance against the aggressor (occupation). Volunteer armed formations, underground structures, local self-defense units, volunteer movements, information resistance, establishment of foreign aid channels, etc. are strongly stimulated. As a result, there is a deetatization of military practice, an active involvement of the general population in defense activities.The communicative subsystem feels no less dynamic changes. Inside the political system there is a rapid selection ofpolitical actors based on their attitude to the objectives of the war, the opportunities for participation in it and the ways of working in practical military actions. Subjects expressing doubts about the possibility of victory, and even congratulating the enemy, acquire the status of non-systemic elements, whose activities should be stopped immediately. Their leaders have to face political (criminal) responsibility for anti-state actions.The spiritual and cultural subsystem is connected with the peculiarities of mass political culture, the rational and irrational components of collective and individual political consciousness. The ability of the political system to actively resist the dangers of the hybrid war and to succeed in its consequence is the domination of positive (heroic-patriotic, liberation, victorious) cultural-ideological entities thatform the general spiritual uplift of the people. The vulnerability of the political system, which loses the hybrid war and questions the future of the state, society, and nation, leads to the opposite result. Apathy, fatalism, despondency, internal emptiness of a person are a nourishing environment for the formation of a feeling of defeat, which is the goal of a hybrid variety of hostilities on the part of the enemy.The overall impact of the hybrid war on the political system of society is indisputable. The political system, using its adaptive potential, inevitably changes in the structural, functional, communicative, normative, and so on. The direction and intensity of such changes depends on the stability andflexibility of the political system, target orientations and resources of the attacking party, as well as the foreign policy context of the deployment and development of military events.Conclusions. The overall impact of the hybrid war on the political system of society is indisputable. The institutional subsystem of the political system of society in the context of hybrid warfare is characterized by the creation of new military-political authorities, accelerated development of the military organization of the state (security and defense sectors), increased attention to or protection against the infrastructure of information and psychological warfare, as well as deepening of the international military-political partnership. In the normative subsystem there is a dynamic update of legislation on national security and defense, taking into account the needs of the war. The functional subsystem stimulates the qualitative execution of legally defined responsibilities in the field of national security and defense, mobilization of state and social capabilities for military tasks. The communicative subsystem provides the search andformation ofnew formats of interaction of elements of the political system with each other, with the external environment and with civil society. Changes in the spiritual and cultural subsystem are to intensify the activity of mass media, cultural, artistic and educational institutions on the issues of informational and psychological offensive (defense), as well as the formation of heroic-patriotic, liberation, victorious components ofsocial consciousness capable of ensuring the spiritual uplift of the nation in order to win the war. The focus and intensity ofsuch changes depends on a number of factors, the main of which is the stability of the political system, supplemented by elements offlexibility, target orientations and resources of the attacking party, as well as the foreign policy context of the deployment and development of military events. ; Рассмотрено влияние гибридной войны на политическую систему общества и ее ключевые подсистемы - институциональную, нормативную, функциональную, ком­муникативную, духовно-культурную. Указано на сущностные изменения, происхо­дящие в указанных подсистемах в условиях конфликтного взаимодействия сторон, участвующих в гибридной войне. ; Розглянуто вплив гібридної війни на політичну систему суспільства та її клю­чові підсистеми - інституційну, нормативну, функціональну, комунікативну, духо­вно-культурну. Вказано на сутнісні зміни, що відбуваються у вказаних підсистемах в умовах конфліктної взаємодії сторін, що беруть участь у гібридній війні.

Problem setting. Transformational changes in political systems are an essential condition for their development. However, if in a peaceful time, diverse political transformations take place on evolutionary principles, then during the war they are significantly accelerated. The hybrid war has brought new emphasis to the transformation of political systems. Such transformations take place practically throughout the political system, but in order to classify the most important transformations, it is expedient to distinguish its key subsystems - institutional, normative, functional, communicative, spiritual and cultural.Analysis of recent research and publications on the topic. In the works of O. Babkina, V. Bebik, V. Gaponenko, V. Gorbatenko, I. Gorokhovsky, V. Kotygorenko, V. Kafarsky, N. Khoma, I. Kresinoy, A. Kudryachenko, V Masic, Y. Matsievsky, P. Mironenko, M. Mikhalchenko, I. Onischenko, E. Pereguda, T. Poyarkova, M. Primush, O. Romanyuk,F. Rudich, V. Soldatenko, O. Stoiko, T. Tkachenko, G. Zelenko, and other native. The researchers have considered in detail the processes of formation and development of political systems. In the works of O. Demenko, V. Dubov, M. Gonchar, V. Gorbulin,A. Litvinenko, V. Mandrageli, B. Parakhonsky, M. Rozumnyj, L. Smola, M. Trebin,G. avorskaya the problems of the hybrid war in the context of determining its essence, content, orientation, purpose, as well as the specifics of deployment and flow. Scientific developments by F. Cappen, F. Hoffman, R. Glenn, R. Newson, J. Sherr reveal the views of Western specialists on hybrid wars. At the same time, studies that examine the transformation of political systems under the influence of the hybrid war in Ukrainian political science is clearly not enough.Paper objective. Indicate the existence of a large number of definitions of the hybrid war, none of which does not claim to epistemological absolute. Analyze the transformational processes in the main subsystems of the political system of society (institutional, normative, functional, communicative, spiritual and cultural) in the context of a hybrid war. Indicate the innovative moments of the development ofpolitical systems under the influence of hybrid offensive (defense). Emphasize the special role of the state as the basic political institution on the organization of the vital functions of the political system in the conditions of active hybrid influences of the opposite side (enemy state).Paper main body. A hybrid war affects all subsystems of the political system ofsociety - institutional, normative, functional, communicative, spiritual and cultural (cultural- ideological). However, there is a significant difference in the depth and intensity of such influence.There is a fundamental influence of the hybrid war on the state as the basic political institution of society, which is the main actor of military-political relations. Destruction (weakening) of the enemy state was and remains the goal ofany war, including hybrid war. Under these conditions, the state is faced with the need to create versatile variants of the power response to hybrid hazards. As a rule, special government bodies are created with additional powers. There are large-scale institutional transformations within the security and defense sector. For the conduct of hostilities, the forces of reserve are involved. Full or partial mobilization is announced. New parts and connections are deployed. Additional elements of the security and defense sector can be created.There are changes in the regulatory legal subsystem. Orders of the supreme commander- in-chief, directives of the supreme commander-in-chief, decisions of military-civilian administrations, etc. may be added to traditional normative legal acts (laws, decrees, resolutions, decisions, orders).The functional subsystem is also in a state of massive changes. The authorities deliberately urge all patriotic forces to strengthen armed resistance against the aggressor (occupation). Volunteer armed formations, underground structures, local self-defense units, volunteer movements, information resistance, establishment of foreign aid channels, etc. are strongly stimulated. As a result, there is a deetatization of military practice, an active involvement of the general population in defense activities.The communicative subsystem feels no less dynamic changes. Inside the political system there is a rapid selection ofpolitical actors based on their attitude to the objectives of the war, the opportunities for participation in it and the ways of working in practical military actions. Subjects expressing doubts about the possibility of victory, and even congratulating the enemy, acquire the status of non-systemic elements, whose activities should be stopped immediately. Their leaders have to face political (criminal) responsibility for anti-state actions.The spiritual and cultural subsystem is connected with the peculiarities of mass political culture, the rational and irrational components of collective and individual political consciousness. The ability of the political system to actively resist the dangers of the hybrid war and to succeed in its consequence is the domination of positive (heroic-patriotic, liberation, victorious) cultural-ideological entities thatform the general spiritual uplift of the people. The vulnerability of the political system, which loses the hybrid war and questions the future of the state, society, and nation, leads to the opposite result. Apathy, fatalism, despondency, internal emptiness of a person are a nourishing environment for the formation of a feeling of defeat, which is the goal of a hybrid variety of hostilities on the part of the enemy.The overall impact of the hybrid war on the political system of society is indisputable. The political system, using its adaptive potential, inevitably changes in the structural, functional, communicative, normative, and so on. The direction and intensity of such changes depends on the stability andflexibility of the political system, target orientations and resources of the attacking party, as well as the foreign policy context of the deployment and development of military events.Conclusions. The overall impact of the hybrid war on the political system of society is indisputable. The institutional subsystem of the political system of society in the context of hybrid warfare is characterized by the creation of new military-political authorities, accelerated development of the military organization of the state (security and defense sectors), increased attention to or protection against the infrastructure of information and psychological warfare, as well as deepening of the international military-political partnership. In the normative subsystem there is a dynamic update of legislation on national security and defense, taking into account the needs of the war. The functional subsystem stimulates the qualitative execution of legally defined responsibilities in the field of national security and defense, mobilization of state and social capabilities for military tasks. The communicative subsystem provides the search andformation ofnew formats of interaction of elements of the political system with each other, with the external environment and with civil society. Changes in the spiritual and cultural subsystem are to intensify the activity of mass media, cultural, artistic and educational institutions on the issues of informational and psychological offensive (defense), as well as the formation of heroic-patriotic, liberation, victorious components ofsocial consciousness capable of ensuring the spiritual uplift of the nation in order to win the war. The focus and intensity ofsuch changes depends on a number of factors, the main of which is the stability of the political system, supplemented by elements offlexibility, target orientations and resources of the attacking party, as well as the foreign policy context of the deployment and development of military events. ; Рассмотрено влияние гибридной войны на политическую систему общества и ее ключевые подсистемы - институциональную, нормативную, функциональную, ком­муникативную, духовно-культурную. Указано на сущностные изменения, происхо­дящие в указанных подсистемах в условиях конфликтного взаимодействия сторон, участвующих в гибридной войне. ; Розглянуто вплив гібридної війни на політичну систему суспільства та її клю­чові підсистеми - інституційну, нормативну, функціональну, комунікативну, духо­вно-культурну. Вказано на сутнісні зміни, що відбуваються у вказаних підсистемах в умовах конфліктної взаємодії сторін, що беруть участь у гібридній війні.