Доклад: Socio-cultural foundations of east-europeanRussian geopolitics english

3. Stage 2. From 1580-s until 1700

3. Stage 3. From 1700 to 1721

2nd cycle - 3 subperiods:

1. From 1721 to 1917

2. From 1914 to 1991

3. From 1991 and for some future

The above data are exceptionally important for correct interpretation of the spatial processes within Russian Empire - USSR - CIS. Life term of the particular socio-cultural region far exceeds the specific forms of the state organization within this space. Processes of space assimilation indeed have their own rules and logic, and these directly relate to the current events within the CIS space.

For instance, to understand correctly present situation in Ukraine, it is especially important to take into account the fact that of its six socio-cultural regions only three are completely within the borders of the modern Ukrainian state (Central Ukrainian, Western Ukrainian and Southern Ukrainian regions). Territories of the three others extend over the state borders and - to a greater or smaller degree - are located within the Russian Federation space (Southern Russian, Eastern Ukrainian and Smolensk -Bryansk -Chernigov -Sumy regions). Thus, modern political boundaries of Ukraine do not completely correspond with the boundaries of the socio-cultural regions within its territory. It's possible to talk for as long as one wishes about Ukraine's political independence, but it makes sense to take into consideration the fact that the socio-cultural regions within its "formal" territory, for centuries were being integrated into the common space of the Russian SCS.

5. We present below the typology of the boundaries within Russian SCS space as well as their brief description, where accent is made on the problems of Ukraine and its Crimean region in particular.

In general, we identify 11 (eleven) types of the state (political) boundaries within the Russian Empire - USSR - CIS space [1]. They are:

First type – external boundary between Russian Empire - USSR - CIS and states representing alien socio-cultural formations.

Second type – boundary between Russian enclaves and their environment / neighbors. Example: boundary between Kaliningrad Region (as Russian enclave) and Lithuania. We have the same type of boundary in the Crimean case: Southern Ukrainian socio-cultural region does essentially differ from Crimea as Russian socio-cultural enclave.

In case of Crimea, even nature itself assists forming such type of a boundary: take Sivash lagoon that separates Crimea from the rest of Ukraine. Notably, Sivash is a relatively young natural formation, but it quite furthers such a separation. What is even more remarkable is that within the boundary zone of the Crimean enclave and Ukraine, in a strict accordance with the dominant (Russian) standards of the territories' assimilation, local ecological crisis is being generated: intensive growth of a chemical industry enterprises in the area and most recent experiments with the Sivash "open economic zone" should lead, in a historically brief time, to a degradation of the area's natural environment. The area should become highly unattractive for both living there and businesses / any sort of economic activity. Phenomena of such kind are being correctly described and explained in terms of the SCS theory.

Third type – boundary between Russian homeland and internal buffer zones. Example: boundary between Pskov region and Estonia. Another example gives Ukraine.

Fourth type – boundary between the states of the Russian homeland itself; it bears internal character and runs along the relic external buffer zone. Such is, for instance, the boundary between Belarus (White Russia) and Russian Federation in their present borders. Such boundary, as a rule, separates / divides the regions that are homogeneous in socio-cultural respect, and divides them in such way that they become belonging to politically different states within Russian socio-cultural system.

Fifth type – indefinite in a socio-cultural respect, boundary of internal character in the areas of historically young (pioneer) colonization. Example: Eastern Ukraine in the neighborhood of Russian Federation, with characteristic absence of definite boundary lines in the space organization.

Sixth type – not well-grounded, quite undefined and never before existed boundaries between states of Russian SCS that have been originated only recently. Example: boundaries between the states of Middle / Central Asia - former Soviet Republics. This type is only characteristic for internal boundaries within Russian SCS space. All external boundaries - with alien socio-cultural formations and SCS-s in particular - are still extremely stable and well-defined.

Seventh type – relatively clear boundary, with greater or lesser numbers of disputable (and sometimes disputed) sections, each of those may become a reason and basis for respective regional conflict and essential revision of the entire boundary line. Example: the boundary between Belarus (White Russia) and Lithuania.

Eighth type – recently formed boundary between the CIS state and enclave within its territory. Example: the boundary between Moldova and Transnistrian Republic (PMR).

Ninth type – internal boundaries between territorial-administrative units within Russian Federation. This type also includes boundaries of the autonomous republics.

Tenth type – boundary that doesn't bear the status of a stateone, but separates internal buffer zone from the Russian homeland. It has clearly defined character only in a Western part of the Russian Empire - USSR - CIS space.

Eleventh type – stable and well-defined boundaries between naturally dependent vassals within borders of the internal buffer zone of Russian SCS. These boundaries may be quite stable, because they never play significant role in themselves. Example: boundaries between the Baltic states.

Specific of the modern Ukrainian state lies in the combination of the heterogeneous structure of its territory and heterogeneity of its political borders. State boundary of Ukraine is represented by 7 (seven) different types of borders with each one possessing own specific qualities and dynamics of changes. Here we have the following types of the state (political) boundaries: First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth . Generally speaking, seven of the existing within Russian SCS types of state (political) boundaries are being represented in modern Ukraine. That's simply too much for a single state... No other post-Soviet state has to deal with such a situation. Once more, each type of a state (political) boundaries is characterized by specific evolution.

Heterogeneity of a state (political) boundaries - and especially in a combination with the heterogeneous space structure - guarantees Ukrainian state all sorts of instability for an observable future. As a form of organization (of a social and political life), state usually has essentially shorter life term compare to that of socio-cultural boundaries and regions (not to mention a socio-cultural formations). And in such conditions reforms (and economic reforms in particular) become practically impossible: any successive measures would lead only to a number of unforeseen and hardly remediable consequences. Each type of the Ukrainian state boundaries may react to a radical reform / changes in its own way.

6. Socio-cultural regions and boundaries between them are very dynamic, but their dynamics may be quite strictly described theoretically. Here are some results of our 1998 researches in this regard.

THEORETICAL EVOLUTIONARY MODEL OF SPACE SOCIO-CULTURAL

ASSIMILATION & GEOPOLITICAL PROCESSES WITHIN RUSSIAN SCS

Having analysed the evolution of the socio-cultural systems, we've discovered that, when it comes to forming their own spaces, they do display some common qualities. These qualities are being reflected in the model that demonstrates a series of logically succeeding one another stages of the SCS's space self-organization.

The model is presented in the APPENDIX 5: GENERAL MODEL OF THE PROCESS OF SPACE ASSIMILATION WITHIN SCS (all graphics are designed in Word 7.0 for Windows 95).

This theoretical model fully applies to the Russian SCS analysis. The latter's present-day condition, as from our point of view, may be interpreted as a beginning of the fifth stage. At this point, situation develops, for the most part, in a direction of increasing the state heterogeneity / diversity on the SCS's periphery. And thus, the transition from one unitary state to a bigger number of states is quite natural. It's significant that all new states are located on the SCS's periphery. Some of these peripheral states may be extremely unstable, and during a brief historical perspective (within fifth and sixth stages of the SCS's space evolution) can easily disintegrate into even greater numbers of a smaller states. In a chronological sense, it may take from around ten years to a good few decades.

Principal differences of this stage also lie in a growing quantity of enclaves. Before, there were not so many of them, but at the fifth stage the number of enclaves increases drastically. In the specific conditions of Russian SCS, it's also being expressed in a considerably grown importance of enclaves. Within boundaries of the unitary state of the past, they have just been forming. During the fifth and sixth stages, all enclaves should reveal their full potential.