Suchergebnisse

Розглянуто оборонно-промисловий комплекс України як сектор економіки, призначений для розроблення і виробництва продукції оборонного призначення, що фактично є фундаментом воєнної безпеки та оборони країни, нинішні пріоритети військово-промислової політики. Розглянуто основне бронетанкове озброєння і техніка, що випускається на підприємствах ДК "Укроборонпром". ; Рассмотрено оборонно-промышленный комплекс Украины как сектор экономики, предназначенный для разработки и производства продукции оборонного назначения, что фактически есть фундаментом военной безопасности и обороны страны, нынешние приоритеты военно-промышленной политики. Рассмотрено бронетанковое вооружение и техника, выпускаемая на предприятиях ГК "Укроборонпром". ; The defensive-industrial complex of Ukraine as sector of economy, intended for development and production of goods of the defensive setting, is considered, that actually is foundation of military safety and defensive of country, present priorities of military industrial politics. The armored armament and technique produced on the enterprises of state corporation "Ukroboronprom" are considered.

In the study, the author analyzes the views of global thinkers (from antiquity to modern history) on the reciprocal influence of politics and war. The book by Carl von Clausewitz "On War" (1816–1831) was a fundamental work to illuminate this problem. In it, the author described war as an alternative continuation of politics; noted that war was always driven by political motives and served only as a political instrument, its nature determined by political goals. In this article, the researcher also sheds light on the views of thinkers on army development; attraction of various resources (mobilization, training, military alliances, etc.); choice of strategy; forms and methods of struggle.The author defines the term "military and political thought" as a system of views aimed at achieving a political goal by military means. He also relates this definition to the means of waging the war; however, in this interpretation the concept is narrowed and refers only to warfare, unlike the former definition which also considers the issues of army development.The article states that the process of social evolution led to the improvement of the administrative apparatus and gradual separation of political and military authorities. At first, political and military powers were functionally inseparable and concentrated in the hands of a leader or a ruler. In a course of time, the mechanism of governance became more complicated, but still contained the military component, which did not form a separate branch and remained a derivative of the political power. The impact of politics on war is testified by the fact that politicians themselves often determine the beginning and end of an armed conflict. The article also points out that the military and political thought is actively developing not only during wartime, as every armed conflict is usually prepared in advance.The researcher is convinced that studying the history of military and political thought makes it impossible to repeat the mistakes of the past, and allows projection into the future. ; У дослідженні проаналізовано погляди світових мислителів (від античності до новітньої історії) на взаємовплив політики та війни. Фундаментальною працею для висвітлення цієї проблеми стала книга Карла фон Кляузевіца «Про війну» (1816–1831), автор якої вважав, що війна – це продовження політики іншими засобами. Він зазначав, що війна завжди викликана політичними мотивами, що вона є лише інструментом політики, а її характер визначають саме політичні цілі. У статті також висвітлено погляди мислителів на такі питання, як розбудова армії, залучення різноманітних ресурсів (мобілізація, вишколи, військові союзи тощо), вибір стратегії, форм і методів боротьби. Автор дає таке визначення терміна «військово-політична думка» – це система поглядів, спрямованих на досягнення політичної мети за допомогою використання військових засобів. Також зазначає, що суміжним терміном до «військово-політичної думки» є термін «воєнно-політична думка», однак у своєму трактуванні останній є звуженим і стосується лише ведення бойових дій, натомість перший розглядає і питання розбудови армії.Вказано, що у процесі розвитку суспільства відбувалося вдосконалення апарату управління й поступово політична та військова влада почали розділятися. Спершу політична та військова влада були функціонально нероздільними та зосереджувалися у руках вождя чи правителя. Поступово механізм управління ускладнювався, проте його військова складова ще впродовж тривалого часу не виділялася в окрему галузь, залишаючись похідною політичної влади. Про вплив політики на війну свідчить і те, що самі ж політики доволі часто визначають початок та завершення збройного конфлікту. Зауважено, що військово-політична думка активно розвивається не лише у воєнний час, адже до збройного конфлікту зазвичай готуються заздалегідь.Дослідник переконаний, що вивчення історії військово-політичної думки дає змогу унеможливити повторення помилок, які були допущені у минулому, та здійснити проекцію у майбутнє.

In the study, the author analyzes the views of global thinkers (from antiquity to modern history) on the reciprocal influence of politics and war. The book by Carl von Clausewitz "On War" (1816–1831) was a fundamental work to illuminate this problem. In it, the author described war as an alternative continuation of politics; noted that war was always driven by political motives and served only as a political instrument, its nature determined by political goals. In this article, the researcher also sheds light on the views of thinkers on army development; attraction of various resources (mobilization, training, military alliances, etc.); choice of strategy; forms and methods of struggle.The author defines the term "military and political thought" as a system of views aimed at achieving a political goal by military means. He also relates this definition to the means of waging the war; however, in this interpretation the concept is narrowed and refers only to warfare, unlike the former definition which also considers the issues of army development.The article states that the process of social evolution led to the improvement of the administrative apparatus and gradual separation of political and military authorities. At first, political and military powers were functionally inseparable and concentrated in the hands of a leader or a ruler. In a course of time, the mechanism of governance became more complicated, but still contained the military component, which did not form a separate branch and remained a derivative of the political power. The impact of politics on war is testified by the fact that politicians themselves often determine the beginning and end of an armed conflict. The article also points out that the military and political thought is actively developing not only during wartime, as every armed conflict is usually prepared in advance.The researcher is convinced that studying the history of military and political thought makes it impossible to repeat the mistakes of the past, and allows projection into the future. ; У дослідженні проаналізовано погляди світових мислителів (від античності до новітньої історії) на взаємовплив політики та війни. Фундаментальною працею для висвітлення цієї проблеми стала книга Карла фон Кляузевіца «Про війну» (1816–1831), автор якої вважав, що війна – це продовження політики іншими засобами. Він зазначав, що війна завжди викликана політичними мотивами, що вона є лише інструментом політики, а її характер визначають саме політичні цілі. У статті також висвітлено погляди мислителів на такі питання, як розбудова армії, залучення різноманітних ресурсів (мобілізація, вишколи, військові союзи тощо), вибір стратегії, форм і методів боротьби. Автор дає таке визначення терміна «військово-політична думка» – це система поглядів, спрямованих на досягнення політичної мети за допомогою використання військових засобів. Також зазначає, що суміжним терміном до «військово-політичної думки» є термін «воєнно-політична думка», однак у своєму трактуванні останній є звуженим і стосується лише ведення бойових дій, натомість перший розглядає і питання розбудови армії.Вказано, що у процесі розвитку суспільства відбувалося вдосконалення апарату управління й поступово політична та військова влада почали розділятися. Спершу політична та військова влада були функціонально нероздільними та зосереджувалися у руках вождя чи правителя. Поступово механізм управління ускладнювався, проте його військова складова ще впродовж тривалого часу не виділялася в окрему галузь, залишаючись похідною політичної влади. Про вплив політики на війну свідчить і те, що самі ж політики доволі часто визначають початок та завершення збройного конфлікту. Зауважено, що військово-політична думка активно розвивається не лише у воєнний час, адже до збройного конфлікту зазвичай готуються заздалегідь.Дослідник переконаний, що вивчення історії військово-політичної думки дає змогу унеможливити повторення помилок, які були допущені у минулому, та здійснити проекцію у майбутнє.

Стаття присвячена аналізу актуальних проблем ґендерної політики у Збройних Силах України. Проаналізовано рівність прав жінок та чоловіків при виконанні обов'язків військової служби. Доведено, що на даний час ґендерна політика у Збройних Силах України неповністю відображає загальносвітові тенденції у сфері ген- дерних відносин. ; Статья посвящена анализу актуальных проблем гендерной политики в Вооруженных Силах Украины. Проанализировано равенство прав женщин и мужчин при выполнении обязанностей военной службы. Доказано, что в данное время гендерная политика в Вооруженных Силах Украины не полностью отображает общемировые тенденции в сфере гендерных отношений. ; Problem setting. The immediacy of the problem of gender politics in the Armed Forces of Ukraine is caused by the following: general tendency of uptick in problems of gender politics in modern day society; increasing number of female soldiers and female workers in the Armed Forces of Ukraine; increasing number of military occupational specialties and positions which female soldiers are appointed on; dominance of obsolete stereotypes on place and role of women in the army; need for determination of essence and content of gender politics in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, priority directions of its implementation.Recent research and publications analysis. Works by N. Vavilova, N. Dubchak, O. Dy- achenko, N. Klimenko, V. Krotikova, V. Malyugy, O. Oleinik, V. Topalskogo highlight main theoretical and methodological research approaches to a problem of gender politics of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.Paying tribute to the conducted researches, it is necessary to state insufficient develop- ment of certain topical problems of gender politics of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in modern day society.Paper objective. Based on the aforesaid, the purpose of the article is social and philo- sophic reflection of implementation of gender politics in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, determination of actual topical issues of gender politics of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.Paper main body. The author highlights few topical issues in implementation of gender politics in the Armed Forces of Ukraine in present-day conditions.The first problem is a problem of equality of men and women while on active service: limitations of positions which female soldiers can be appointed on; limitation of a woman's right for military education majoring in certain specialties; differences in age restrictions when concluding a military service contract and age limits to be on military service; dif- ferences in military service between men and women depending on the number of children. The second problem is a problem of violating a principle of gender equity of male and female soldiers with respect to kinds of responsibility and a way of enduring the punish- ment for violating a certain military career structure: such kind of criminal penalty as custody in a penal battalion (it can be found in 13 sanctions and 36 regulations) is not enforced towards female solders; military confinement is not enforced towards female solders; female soldiers are not held liable for 9 kinds of military administrative violations. The third problem is a problem of violating a principle of gender equity of male and female soldiers with respect to performance of military duties: daily duty (female soldiers are not appointed for daily duties or they can be appointed to certain types of daily duty) and business trips (female soldiers who have children under 14 years old can be assignedto a business trip only upon their consent)Conclusions of the research. Therefore, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are in need of effective and coherent gender politics which could correspond to modern global trends and promote to maximum personal self-fulfillment of both men and women for strengthen- ing the defence capability of the country, military battle readiness and operational effec- tiveness of the Ukrainian army. Gender politics in the Armed Forces of Ukraine must ensure equal rights, equal obligations, equal responsibilities of male and female soldiers.

Стаття присвячена аналізу актуальних проблем ґендерної політики у Збройних Силах України. Проаналізовано рівність прав жінок та чоловіків при виконанні обов'язків військової служби. Доведено, що на даний час ґендерна політика у Збройних Силах України неповністю відображає загальносвітові тенденції у сфері ген- дерних відносин. ; Статья посвящена анализу актуальных проблем гендерной политики в Вооруженных Силах Украины. Проанализировано равенство прав женщин и мужчин при выполнении обязанностей военной службы. Доказано, что в данное время гендерная политика в Вооруженных Силах Украины не полностью отображает общемировые тенденции в сфере гендерных отношений. ; Problem setting. The immediacy of the problem of gender politics in the Armed Forces of Ukraine is caused by the following: general tendency of uptick in problems of gender politics in modern day society; increasing number of female soldiers and female workers in the Armed Forces of Ukraine; increasing number of military occupational specialties and positions which female soldiers are appointed on; dominance of obsolete stereotypes on place and role of women in the army; need for determination of essence and content of gender politics in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, priority directions of its implementation.Recent research and publications analysis. Works by N. Vavilova, N. Dubchak, O. Dy- achenko, N. Klimenko, V. Krotikova, V. Malyugy, O. Oleinik, V. Topalskogo highlight main theoretical and methodological research approaches to a problem of gender politics of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.Paying tribute to the conducted researches, it is necessary to state insufficient develop- ment of certain topical problems of gender politics of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in modern day society.Paper objective. Based on the aforesaid, the purpose of the article is social and philo- sophic reflection of implementation of gender politics in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, determination of actual topical issues of gender politics of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.Paper main body. The author highlights few topical issues in implementation of gender politics in the Armed Forces of Ukraine in present-day conditions.The first problem is a problem of equality of men and women while on active service: limitations of positions which female soldiers can be appointed on; limitation of a woman's right for military education majoring in certain specialties; differences in age restrictions when concluding a military service contract and age limits to be on military service; dif- ferences in military service between men and women depending on the number of children. The second problem is a problem of violating a principle of gender equity of male and female soldiers with respect to kinds of responsibility and a way of enduring the punish- ment for violating a certain military career structure: such kind of criminal penalty as custody in a penal battalion (it can be found in 13 sanctions and 36 regulations) is not enforced towards female solders; military confinement is not enforced towards female solders; female soldiers are not held liable for 9 kinds of military administrative violations. The third problem is a problem of violating a principle of gender equity of male and female soldiers with respect to performance of military duties: daily duty (female soldiers are not appointed for daily duties or they can be appointed to certain types of daily duty) and business trips (female soldiers who have children under 14 years old can be assignedto a business trip only upon their consent)Conclusions of the research. Therefore, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are in need of effective and coherent gender politics which could correspond to modern global trends and promote to maximum personal self-fulfillment of both men and women for strengthen- ing the defence capability of the country, military battle readiness and operational effec- tiveness of the Ukrainian army. Gender politics in the Armed Forces of Ukraine must ensure equal rights, equal obligations, equal responsibilities of male and female soldiers.

The special features of a military parade as a political ritual and symbolic actions are considered. The basic historical stages of the evolution of parade as ritual-processual symbol are defined. The consolidating potential of military parade in the symbolic sphere of politics is disclosed. ; Рассматриваются специфические признаки военного парада как политического ритуала и символического действия. Определены основные исторические этапы становления парада как ритуально-процессуального символа. Раскрывается консолидирующий потенциал военного парада в символическом поле политики. ; Розглядаються специфічні ознаки військового параду як політичного ритуалу та символічної дії. Окреслено основні історичні етапи становлення параду як ритуально-процесуального символу. Розкривається консолідуючий потенціал військового параду у символічному полі політики.

The time limits of the life of one generation are about 25-30 years, so lived in the struggle for building its own state and its armed defence, this time for Ukraine goes down in the history of the first generation of creation and attempts to comply with four military doctrines (1993-2004-2012-2015), in which our own defence course was proclaimed.
The theoretical basis of these official documents of significance were certain paradigms of military-political thinking, according to which Ukraine did not consider it a continuation of politics. The direction and principles of military policy (defence or security policy in European terminology) for modern Ukraine from the mid-20s of the XIX century, as well as 100 years ago, again came to the fore in connection with the implementation of previously abstract concepts " annexation "," occupation "," war ", which allegedly did not exist for our country in recent history. But today they have been embodied or, in the image of Franz Kafka, "reincarnated" into threatening forms of Russia's military practice against our state, the end of which is not yet visible in the near future. The military-theoretical and political response was the "Military Strategy of Ukraine" in 2021, which "opened" a new generation of paradigms of militarypolitical thinking. The main thesis is the belief that the protection of sovereignty and strengthening of military security is the military-theoretical and political response was the "Military Strategy of Ukraine" in 2021, which "opened" a new generation of paradigms of military-political thinking. The main thesis is the belief that the protection of sovereignty and strengthening of military security is the creation of a "comprehensive defence system" with the integration of all forces of the state and civil society, law enforcement agencies and volunteers, administrative regions and territorial communities.
The military-theoretical and political response was the "Military Strategy of Ukraine" in 2021, which "opened" a new generation of paradigms of military-political thinking. We will prove that this is a philosophy of military security instead of the previously expressed doctrinal military-political ideas of entrusting a matter of national importance to the forces of the defence sector. The new generation of public life Ukraine will begin with a new paradigm of militarypolitical thinking, the central idea of which is the transition from hopes for the political levers of defence for international cooperation to the creation of a system of comprehensive national security with the synergistic potential of Ukrainianity.

The revolutionary transition of power to democratic forces after the "dignity revolution" in 2014 in Ukraine did not indicate the absence of contradictions within the new ruling class, because patriotic and devotion to democratic transformation are not the only condition for the consolidation of the ruling class. The democratic theory of the elite, which corresponds to the essence of the designated form of government, recognizes the existence of a select minority (elite) in each of the social spheres, which owns intellectual and voluntary law, not leadership. The relations between the elites are not stable, but on the contrary may become exacerbated in the fractured periods of history In the countries of "young democracy", the relationship between the political and military elite is controversial lace of relations, because the military elite represents a closed "group of interests" in politics, so it can move from supporting the ruling class to a strong opponent of relations. Even the neutral position of the military elite includes a variant of interference in political processes of power scale. Revolutionary changes on Ukraine's path to European integration may have been deeply embedded in the formation of a new military elite that has tempered itself in the armed struggle with the Russian-separatist forces, was engaged in joint exercises, and most importantly, in business cooperation with representatives of the military elites of the West, which have a long tradition Serious interaction with the ruling class. Taking into account that social and political processes in Ukraine can be compared with developing countries, the whole set of contradictory relations between the political and military elite in our country should be directed to the general line of constitutional-legal civil-military relations.

The imposition of German occupied regime in the village of Losynivka the district of Losynivka Chernihiv oblast In the article with reference to the analysis of archives materials, published documents, oral sources was examined occupied politics of Germany and its influence on people's lifestyle in conditions of military action on a separate territory .It was shown the process of establishing German authorities in Losynivka, was characterized inhabitants, was shown the hospodariat action of inhabitants in conditions of occupation. It was analyzed actions of occupied politics on organization of inhabitants and the main ways of their hospodariat. There was a process of general labour servitude and a system of paid work for labour days. It was shown ways of ideological influence of occupied politics as for the population of Losynivka ; У статті на основі аналізу архівних матеріалів, опублікованих документів, усних джерел розглянуто окупаційну політику Німеччини та її вплив на життя селян в умовах воєнної дійсності на окремо узятій території. Висвітлено процес становлення німецьких органів влади в Лосинівці, охарактеризовано склад населення, розкрито господарську діяльність населення в умовах окупації.

The radical actions of the Kremlin, which led to the annexation of the Crimea and the support of the separatists in the East of Ukraine, were conditioned by fundamental changes in Russia's domestic and foreign policy, which began much earlier and were connected with the historically determined irrational aspirations of Russians to territorial expansion. The turning point of radical changes in Russia's domestic and foreign policy can be considered the famous speech of Putin, which he spoke at the Munich Security Conference on February 10, 2007, and openly said that he «really thinks about the problems of international security.» The main points of this report are the following: the unacceptability and impossibility for a modern world of a unipolar model of international relations; the need to find a reasonable balance between the interests of all actors in international politics; the inadmissibility of the invasion of the United States of America in all spheres of world development and the imposition of rules of the game to other states; the admissibility of the use of military force as the last argument only on the basis of the UN Charter; termination of the provocative NATO expansion to the East as reducing the level of mutual trust in the world; the hopelessness of the West's economic policy towards the Third World countries; stopping the process of transforming the OSCE into a tool for securing the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries relative to other countries; the formation of a just, democratic world order capable of ensuring prosperity not only for the elected but for all.Putin's speech served as an occasion for controversy in the Western political circles to restore the «cold» war. By the Russian side, the Munich speech of Putin was seen as a further program of foreign policy of Russia in the late 2000's - early 2010's. External causes of radical change in the course of the Russian Federation: 1) the enlargement of NATO and the EU to the east in 2004, which took place without taking into account the interests of the Russian Federation, and this is against the backdrop of the intensified declaration of Putin after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 supporting the American strategy to combat terrorism; 2) «color revolutions» that took place in 2003-2005 in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and were actively supported by the United States and the leading European countries. The conservative part of the Russian elite perceived them as an offensive against Russia's interests in the post-Soviet space. Internal reasons: 1) the rise in oil prices on the world market since the early 2000's, accompanied by a surge of foreign direct investment and a cessation of capital outflow. In conjunction with the dependence of European countries on the supply of Russian energy resources, all this generated in the higher political elite a sense of Russia's new status as an «energy superpower» and claims to restore its role in world politics; 2) the defeat of the big business (Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky) in the struggle for power in the Russian Federation and the growing influence of the federal bureaucracy and security forces, which led by Putin to gain mass support in the parliamentary and presidential elections of 2003-2004.After Munich in Russia, a whole series of conceptual, legislative, structural changes and organizational measures aimed at adapting state institutions and politics under new conditions was launched. The preparation and conduct of the presidential elections in Russia, which resulted in the «return» of Putin to a senior position in the state, finally severed the Kremlin, even with the possibility of establishing a pragmatic cooperation with the West, which attempts were made during the reign of D. Medvedev within the framework of the «reboot» from the United States and «Partnership for Modernization» programs with Germany and the EU.Thus, the evolution of the domestic and foreign policy of the Russian Federation in 2007-2014 is largely due to the imperial essence of the state and society of this country, due to all its historical historical development. In addition, the subjective factor associated with the activities of the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin and his oligarchic leadership headed by his desire for personal enrichment and indivisible domination in the post-Soviet geopolitical space, played a role in changing the country's political course. Accordingly, Russian aggression against Ukraine, which began in February 2014, should be considered a natural result of the expansionist aspirations of the ruling class in Russia. ; The radical actions of the Kremlin, which led to the annexation of the Crimea and the support of the separatists in the East of Ukraine, were conditioned by fundamental changes in Russia's domestic and foreign policy, which began much earlier and were connected with the historically determined irrational aspirations of Russians to territorial expansion. The turning point of radical changes in Russia's domestic and foreign policy can be considered the famous speech of Putin, which he spoke at the Munich Security Conference on February 10, 2007, and openly said that he «really thinks about the problems of international security.» The main points of this report are the following: the unacceptability and impossibility for a modern world of a unipolar model of international relations; the need to find a reasonable balance between the interests of all actors in international politics; the inadmissibility of the invasion of the United States of America in all spheres of world development and the imposition of rules of the game to other states; the admissibility of the use of military force as the last argument only on the basis of the UN Charter; termination of the provocative NATO expansion to the East as reducing the level of mutual trust in the world; the hopelessness of the West's economic policy towards the Third World countries; stopping the process of transforming the OSCE into a tool for securing the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries relative to other countries; the formation of a just, democratic world order capable of ensuring prosperity not only for the elected but for all.Putin's speech served as an occasion for controversy in the Western political circles to restore the «cold» war. By the Russian side, the Munich speech of Putin was seen as a further program of foreign policy of Russia in the late 2000's - early 2010's. External causes of radical change in the course of the Russian Federation: 1) the enlargement of NATO and the EU to the east in 2004, which took place without taking into account the interests of the Russian Federation, and this is against the backdrop of the intensified declaration of Putin after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 supporting the American strategy to combat terrorism; 2) «color revolutions» that took place in 2003-2005 in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and were actively supported by the United States and the leading European countries. The conservative part of the Russian elite perceived them as an offensive against Russia's interests in the post-Soviet space. Internal reasons: 1) the rise in oil prices on the world market since the early 2000's, accompanied by a surge of foreign direct investment and a cessation of capital outflow. In conjunction with the dependence of European countries on the supply of Russian energy resources, all this generated in the higher political elite a sense of Russia's new status as an «energy superpower» and claims to restore its role in world politics; 2) the defeat of the big business (Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky) in the struggle for power in the Russian Federation and the growing influence of the federal bureaucracy and security forces, which led by Putin to gain mass support in the parliamentary and presidential elections of 2003-2004.After Munich in Russia, a whole series of conceptual, legislative, structural changes and organizational measures aimed at adapting state institutions and politics under new conditions was launched. The preparation and conduct of the presidential elections in Russia, which resulted in the «return» of Putin to a senior position in the state, finally severed the Kremlin, even with the possibility of establishing a pragmatic cooperation with the West, which attempts were made during the reign of D. Medvedev within the framework of the «reboot» from the United States and «Partnership for Modernization» programs with Germany and the EU.Thus, the evolution of the domestic and foreign policy of the Russian Federation in 2007-2014 is largely due to the imperial essence of the state and society of this country, due to all its historical historical development. In addition, the subjective factor associated with the activities of the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin and his oligarchic leadership headed by his desire for personal enrichment and indivisible domination in the post-Soviet geopolitical space, played a role in changing the country's political course. Accordingly, Russian aggression against Ukraine, which began in February 2014, should be considered a natural result of the expansionist aspirations of the ruling class in Russia.

The radical actions of the Kremlin, which led to the annexation of the Crimea and the support of the separatists in the East of Ukraine, were conditioned by fundamental changes in Russia's domestic and foreign policy, which began much earlier and were connected with the historically determined irrational aspirations of Russians to territorial expansion. The turning point of radical changes in Russia's domestic and foreign policy can be considered the famous speech of Putin, which he spoke at the Munich Security Conference on February 10, 2007, and openly said that he «really thinks about the problems of international security.» The main points of this report are the following: the unacceptability and impossibility for a modern world of a unipolar model of international relations; the need to find a reasonable balance between the interests of all actors in international politics; the inadmissibility of the invasion of the United States of America in all spheres of world development and the imposition of rules of the game to other states; the admissibility of the use of military force as the last argument only on the basis of the UN Charter; termination of the provocative NATO expansion to the East as reducing the level of mutual trust in the world; the hopelessness of the West's economic policy towards the Third World countries; stopping the process of transforming the OSCE into a tool for securing the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries relative to other countries; the formation of a just, democratic world order capable of ensuring prosperity not only for the elected but for all.Putin's speech served as an occasion for controversy in the Western political circles to restore the «cold» war. By the Russian side, the Munich speech of Putin was seen as a further program of foreign policy of Russia in the late 2000's - early 2010's. External causes of radical change in the course of the Russian Federation: 1) the enlargement of NATO and the EU to the east in 2004, which took place without taking into account the interests of the Russian Federation, and this is against the backdrop of the intensified declaration of Putin after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 supporting the American strategy to combat terrorism; 2) «color revolutions» that took place in 2003-2005 in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and were actively supported by the United States and the leading European countries. The conservative part of the Russian elite perceived them as an offensive against Russia's interests in the post-Soviet space. Internal reasons: 1) the rise in oil prices on the world market since the early 2000's, accompanied by a surge of foreign direct investment and a cessation of capital outflow. In conjunction with the dependence of European countries on the supply of Russian energy resources, all this generated in the higher political elite a sense of Russia's new status as an «energy superpower» and claims to restore its role in world politics; 2) the defeat of the big business (Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky) in the struggle for power in the Russian Federation and the growing influence of the federal bureaucracy and security forces, which led by Putin to gain mass support in the parliamentary and presidential elections of 2003-2004.After Munich in Russia, a whole series of conceptual, legislative, structural changes and organizational measures aimed at adapting state institutions and politics under new conditions was launched. The preparation and conduct of the presidential elections in Russia, which resulted in the «return» of Putin to a senior position in the state, finally severed the Kremlin, even with the possibility of establishing a pragmatic cooperation with the West, which attempts were made during the reign of D. Medvedev within the framework of the «reboot» from the United States and «Partnership for Modernization» programs with Germany and the EU.Thus, the evolution of the domestic and foreign policy of the Russian Federation in 2007-2014 is largely due to the imperial essence of the state and society of this country, due to all its historical historical development. In addition, the subjective factor associated with the activities of the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin and his oligarchic leadership headed by his desire for personal enrichment and indivisible domination in the post-Soviet geopolitical space, played a role in changing the country's political course. Accordingly, Russian aggression against Ukraine, which began in February 2014, should be considered a natural result of the expansionist aspirations of the ruling class in Russia. ; The radical actions of the Kremlin, which led to the annexation of the Crimea and the support of the separatists in the East of Ukraine, were conditioned by fundamental changes in Russia's domestic and foreign policy, which began much earlier and were connected with the historically determined irrational aspirations of Russians to territorial expansion. The turning point of radical changes in Russia's domestic and foreign policy can be considered the famous speech of Putin, which he spoke at the Munich Security Conference on February 10, 2007, and openly said that he «really thinks about the problems of international security.» The main points of this report are the following: the unacceptability and impossibility for a modern world of a unipolar model of international relations; the need to find a reasonable balance between the interests of all actors in international politics; the inadmissibility of the invasion of the United States of America in all spheres of world development and the imposition of rules of the game to other states; the admissibility of the use of military force as the last argument only on the basis of the UN Charter; termination of the provocative NATO expansion to the East as reducing the level of mutual trust in the world; the hopelessness of the West's economic policy towards the Third World countries; stopping the process of transforming the OSCE into a tool for securing the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries relative to other countries; the formation of a just, democratic world order capable of ensuring prosperity not only for the elected but for all.Putin's speech served as an occasion for controversy in the Western political circles to restore the «cold» war. By the Russian side, the Munich speech of Putin was seen as a further program of foreign policy of Russia in the late 2000's - early 2010's. External causes of radical change in the course of the Russian Federation: 1) the enlargement of NATO and the EU to the east in 2004, which took place without taking into account the interests of the Russian Federation, and this is against the backdrop of the intensified declaration of Putin after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 supporting the American strategy to combat terrorism; 2) «color revolutions» that took place in 2003-2005 in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and were actively supported by the United States and the leading European countries. The conservative part of the Russian elite perceived them as an offensive against Russia's interests in the post-Soviet space. Internal reasons: 1) the rise in oil prices on the world market since the early 2000's, accompanied by a surge of foreign direct investment and a cessation of capital outflow. In conjunction with the dependence of European countries on the supply of Russian energy resources, all this generated in the higher political elite a sense of Russia's new status as an «energy superpower» and claims to restore its role in world politics; 2) the defeat of the big business (Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky) in the struggle for power in the Russian Federation and the growing influence of the federal bureaucracy and security forces, which led by Putin to gain mass support in the parliamentary and presidential elections of 2003-2004.After Munich in Russia, a whole series of conceptual, legislative, structural changes and organizational measures aimed at adapting state institutions and politics under new conditions was launched. The preparation and conduct of the presidential elections in Russia, which resulted in the «return» of Putin to a senior position in the state, finally severed the Kremlin, even with the possibility of establishing a pragmatic cooperation with the West, which attempts were made during the reign of D. Medvedev within the framework of the «reboot» from the United States and «Partnership for Modernization» programs with Germany and the EU.Thus, the evolution of the domestic and foreign policy of the Russian Federation in 2007-2014 is largely due to the imperial essence of the state and society of this country, due to all its historical historical development. In addition, the subjective factor associated with the activities of the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin and his oligarchic leadership headed by his desire for personal enrichment and indivisible domination in the post-Soviet geopolitical space, played a role in changing the country's political course. Accordingly, Russian aggression against Ukraine, which began in February 2014, should be considered a natural result of the expansionist aspirations of the ruling class in Russia.

At the beginning ХХІ of century Ukraine again ran into imperial ambitions of Russian Federation, that resulted in a military collision and occupation of part of territory of our state. For successful opposition with the newest colonial expansion it is necessary to appeal to historical experience and analysis of basic strategies and methods of colonial Russian politics. The special personal interest causes the politician of the Russian empire in relation to the Tatar population in fact Crimea again found oneself under control Russia, and in that Tatars fold a native population. One of not popular episodes of long duration expansionist politics of the Russian empire there is her politics in relation to ногайських Tatars that inhabited North Caucasus. In the article basic directions of colonialist politics of the Russian empire are examined in relation to the Tatar population of North Caucasus during expansion in Crimea and on Caucasus the circumstances of elimination of ногайских Tatars that lived on Kuban, genocide in relation to the habitants of this territory, basic strategies, that combined for itself подрыв unities of the Tatar association, exasperating enmity between the Tatar clans and direct elimination of Tatars by direct military aggression, Are illuminated in the second half of ХVІІІ of item. ; В статье рассматриваются основные направления колонизационной политики Российской империи по отношению к татарскому населению Северного Кавказа во время экспансии в Крыму и на Кавказе во второй половине XVIII века. Освещаются обстоятельства уничтожения живших на Кубани ногайских татар, геноцид по отношению к жителям этой территории, основные стратегии, которые сочетали в себе подрыв единства татарской общины, разжигание вражды между татарскими кланами и непосредственное уничтожение татар путем прямой военной агрессии. ; У статті розглядаються основні напрями колонізаційної політики Російської імперії по відношенню до татарського населення Північного Кавказу під час експансії в Криму та на Кавказі в другій половині ХVІІІ ст. Висвітлюються обставини знищення ногайських татар, які жили на Кубані, геноцид по відношенню до мешканців цієї території, основні стратегії, які поєднували в собі підрив єдності татарської спільноти, розпалювання ворожнечі між татарськими кланами та безпосереднє знищення татар шляхом прямої військової агресії.

The role and place of the UNR emigration in politics of prometeizm in Poland are analyzed in the article. It is ascertained that Polish-Ukrainian military cooperation was formed on the traditions of Warsaw Treaty in 1920 and had an anti-Soviet nature. ; Проанализировано роль и место УНР в политике прометеизма Польши. Выяснено, что польско-украинское военное сотрудничество формировалось на традициях Варшавского договора 1920 г. и носило антисоветский характер. ; Проаналізовано роль і місце еміграції УНР у політиці прометеїзму Польщі. З'ясовано, що польсько-українська військова співпраця формувалася на традиціях Варшавської угоди 1920 р. і носила антирадянський характер.