Suchergebnisse

The article outlines and discusses the universal mathematical model created by the author and allowing to predict scenarios for post-Soviet secessions and, more broadly, to forecast secession potentials of any complex subnational regional units. The objects of forecasting are de facto states and different kinds of polities with failed statehood, analyzed through the prism of the "parent state – secession – patron state" triangle. The main research method is quantification of secession factors, which enables a researcher to measure the impacts of objective and subjective conditions on the course and results of secessions through the use of specific variables and indicators. As described in mathematical terms, the model has two extremes: "ideal secession" and "ideal anti-secession".

This article showcases a detailed description of the first stage of research on the discourse of Ukrainian opinion leaders on Facebook conducted by a team of researchers representing MGIMO University, Lomonosov Moscow State University, and Institute of Economy at the Russian Academy of Sciences. Convinced that it is Facebook that serves as the primary means of communication of politicians with the population in Ukraine, the team built a data base consisting of posts written over a 10-month period by 176 profiles belonging to the representatives of Ukrainian elites, and applied machine data analysis. The research question was the following: What strategies on the conflict in Donbas are verbalized by the Ukrainian elites? The author faced three challenges and limitations of machine data processing and analysis:unsuccessful operationalization of terms; functional limitations of the Semantic Archive Platform, of which the author turned out to have unreasonably high expectations; lack of understanding of peculiarities of Big Data analysis. Nevertheless, it was the failure of this pilot research that helped raise crucial questions for further research, primarily on the criteria for shaping a data base and on formulating of the research questions for software. This experience turned to be essential for second and third stages of the research project that were completed a year and half after the project was launched. Hence the necessity to make public all the considerations on this research.

The conflict in the South-East of Ukraine has acquired a protracted nature, what is significantly affected by three main factors. 1) The main actors of the conflict (Ukraine, DPR/LPR, Russia, USA, OSCE) have in principle different opinions about its resolution/escalation. Secondly, despite the recognition of the DPR/LPR territory belonging de jure to Ukraine by majority of actors, the basic document "Minsk-2" uses by the discursive, but not a real support of the actors. Third, Ukraine does not have a consolidated position in the national community and elites concerning the Donbass. Fourth, contrary to the technical, economic, and military support for the region by Russia the official Kiev is the main promoter of secession in Donbas by means of ATO, in spite of the public discourse about the need to reintegrate these territories. Research question: what strategy for the Donbass are shared by Ukrainian elites? Methodological basis: analysis of the Ukrainian Facebook network segment with a combination of quantitative (Big Data) and qualitative (in-depth interviews) methodology. Results: the topic of Donbass in general very poorly presented on the pages of top Ukrainian bloggers in Facebook. The test content is mainly Russian-speaking, Russia is mentioned more often than Donbas. The US and Europe occupy roughly equal positions in the public discourse on the number of references. In the array of almost 90 000 posts in the first 10 months of 2016 only 6% relate to the region of Donbass. Number of posts that contain not the strategic vision of the Donbass future, but only mention of it, is less than half-percent. As a result of manual processing of data, the author comes to the key findings - Ukrainian elites have no the consensus strategy for the Donbass, but strategies to froze the conflict and to conquer of Donbass compete one to each other. The region is not perceived like an object for which Ukraine should fight not only for the territory, but also the people. In conclusion author presented the later iterations which are necessary to improve the degree of verification of the findings in the new study.

Abstract: One year ago, the referendum was held in the Ukrainian autonomous republic of Crimea which resulted in the peninsula becomino part of Russia. This article discusses all Crimean voting, including referendums and elections: from the first referendum in the history of the Soviet Union in January 1991, to the last election to the State Council of the Republic of Crimea within the Russian Federation in September 2014. For each vote, except for the regional elections, the average results of the main candidates are presented in the Crimea and in Ukraine. Sevastopol always has particular identity and special administrative status of the city, regardless of the sovereign center title (Moscow or Kyiv). That`s why we give the data for Sevastopol in addition to the Crimea for each vote. The author analyzes the voting results and compares them with those in other south-eastern regions of Ukraine. A special Crimean identity postulates in this case and changing of regional political trends in Ukraine in the mid-2000s are given. After 2002, Donetsk and Luhansk regions provided 70-100% of support to "Party of Regions" and its leader. While their main rivals always received minimum points from the Donbass. Crimea and Sevastopol were always in second position supporting the ruling party until the end of their Ukrainian history. For a visual comparison of the difference in votes of the Crimea, Sevastopol and the whole Ukraine, the author offers the original graph. In addition, the article focuses on the results and sociological basis of the last Crimean referendum held in March 2014. On the one hand its procedure creates many questions: the lack of equality in the agitation, the presence of paramilitaries, the vote in the absence of actual voter lists, etc. On the other hand, there are, at least, 4 researches of Ukrainian and American sociological services, according to which the sovereignty of Russia is a real value perceived by the majority of Crimea and Sevastopol citizens.

The article discusses the obstacles to the reinternment of Georgian kings, buried in Astrakhan, in the context of Russian-Georgian relations coolness.

The article examines the history of the formation of Ukrainian nationalist parties "Svoboda" and "Praviy sektor". First, that they express a structured nationalism and Russophobia in Ukrainian political space. Secondly, in Russia it has become customary to identify one with another. The paper gives an overview of the basic civil identities in Ukraine, Eastern and Western. The author postulates that their conflict lies at the heart of the growing popularity of both nationalist parties. In addition, this process was provoked by the reunion of Crimea and Russia and by the civil war in the south-east of Ukraine. Before the Crimean crisis Ukrainian nationalism had primarily historical roots, and in many respects it was created by attitude of empire elites (the Russian and Soviet Empires) to Ukrainians and their nation-state formations. After March-2014 it began to acquire a geopolitical indication exactly - Russia is perceived as an enemy. Two of the most famous actors of the Ukrainian nationalists and anarchists parties in modern Russia are "Svoboda" and "Praviy sektor". They have fundamentally different origins. "Svoboda" is a systematic force in Ukrainian politics for almost 20 years. Unlike it "Praviy sektor" was established like a party only in December 2013 within a framework of the Euromaidan. Due to the inability to compare the electoral history of both parties the author pays attention to the comparative analysis of their ideologies. Specific manifestations of extremism of "Svoboda" and "Praviy sektor" are not subjects of this research.

.

Introduction. The article explores the reasons for the emergence of ethnic diversity in the city of Berlin, encompassing political, historical, geographical, anthropological, and sociological aspects of the urban environment. It also outlines the current issues in German society that shape the political culture of its people. The relevance of the topic is driven by the political radicalization of migrants in Germany, particularly in Berlin, resulting from cultural globalization that impacts traditional political institutions and behavioral models of the city's residents. The crisis of the liberal-democratic model and the increase in the number of Eurosceptics also play a significant role in the transformation of the political culture of contemporary Berliners. Solving the problem of political radicalization of migrants is equally important for the Russian Federation, especially in St. Petersburg, combining characteristics of the European urban environment and the polyethnic Russian state, whose residents consider themselves Russians despite national and cultural differences. Methodology and sources. The research is grounded in Ernest Burgess's model of concentric zones. The study relies on research methods such as synthesis, comparison, analysis, and sociological approaches. Data from the Federal Statistical Office of Germany, the results of the 2016 elections to the Berlin House of Deputies, the 2021 elections, and the subsequent 2023 elections, historical data, and findings from other researchers on the topic served as sources for the study. Results and discussion. The study identifies features of urban culture shaping the polyethnic Berlin society, including the ethnic diversity of residents, unique self-identification of Berliners, the presence of distinct urban districts, squatter movements, and the influence of architectural and spatial characteristics on the formation of human social behavior. Some city problems were also highlighted, such as the crisis of formation of a distorted perception of right and left currents among Berliners, the failure of multiculturalism policies, the migration crisis, and housing shortages. Conclusion. The development of a Berliner as a political being is influenced by the characteristics of the urban environment and certain issues facing the city, where the residential district, properties of the city's political culture, and ethnic background impact the political views of its inhabitants

The article is devoted to the analysis of relations in the China-Taiwan-USA triangle, from the point of view of the theory of the multidirectional development of two aspects of statehood under the secession of the island: status and stateness. The authors give an answer to the question of what pressure US and China provide on the status and solvency of Taiwan in 2016–2022, analyzing military, political, economic and demographic factors through their qualitative analysis and quantification. Military variables include the facts of the flag demonstration on the territory of Taiwan and the supply of weapons, economic variables include the volume of imports and exports, trade in goods strategically important for the island's economy, the volume of FDI, passenger and sea traffic, and the number of flights. The visits of officials, the recognition of Taiwanese documents are political variables, as well as the specifics of political communication – this meant the characteristics of unofficial contacts between Beijing and Washington with the island in a particular year. Among the variables of human capital, the number of Taiwanese students studying on the mainland and in the United States and the number of passport holders stand out. Since the authors are interested in the dynamics of Taiwan's relations with the United States and China, static indicators were not included in the object of analysis: the presence of embassies, deterministic legal recognition. Within the framework of the work, a comprehensive approach is presented, simultaneously considering Taiwan's involvement in relations with the United States and China. According to the results of the analysis, it is recorded that Beijing exerts the greatest pressure on the state solvency and status of the island in terms of economic and demographic aspects of interaction. In turn, the United States supports Taipei on the political and military trade track. It is predicted that China will not reintegrate Taiwan militarily in the absence of escalation by the island or the United States (unilateral recognition of independence). The Chinese strategy assumes the smooth involvement of Taiwan with economic, international-political, infrastructural instruments, the reaction to Nancy Pelosi's visit does not mean weakness of the leadership. In addition, the Chinese foreign policy and military culture does not imply drastic actions.