Theoretical Backgrounds

The optimization of state building as well as of current transformation processes in Ukraine demands the formation of a clear vision of the role and place of Ukraine in the contemporary world. This vision together with consistent analyses of the dynamics of Ukraine's interaction with the international environment could create the basis for a resolute geopolitical strategy for Ukraine's future.

Today, the problems of the formation and implementation of this national strategy, the exact definition of geopolitical priorities and of vital national interests, and the problems of stimulating the awareness of the political é lite to the Ukrainian role and place in the global geopolitical realm are becoming core imperatives and decisive factors in Ukraine's historical and political future.

Geopolitics is traditionally regarded to be the discipline that deals with the spacial-geographical aspects of international relations and with the problems of external political expansion by means of power (first of all, by military means). Nevertheless, today the necessity for the development of a new geopolitics, free from the complex of geographical determinism, has become obvious. In this broadened understanding geopolitics can be defined as the focused activity of the subject of international relations in the context of the totality of external and internal factors that allows this subject to exert control over territory with the aim of realizing its own vital interests. The ability of the state to utilize the available advantages of material and non material (power and non-power) factors to pursue a definite political goal is a precondition for its effectiveness in the foreign arena.

On the other hand, the new geopolitics underlines the importance of internal factors in the process of the formation of state foreign policy, as the concentration of resources and efforts that are necessary to achieve goals in interstate relations can be found directly in this sphere. In other words, the effective functioning of all public institutions and mechanisms results in the state's competitiveness in its environment. This is why geopolitics deals with the problem of the " conversion" of the state's internal potential (primarily in the economic, technological, and informational spheres) into its external potential.
In geopolitics, the refusal to dominate in terms of power and geography leads to certain changes in the treatment of the concept of " national security". The new geopolitics tends to regard national security not only as the level of the protection of the person, of society, or of the state from definite threats or as the absence of threats to generally accepted public values, but also as a system of the maximization of interactions between perceived threats and the resources that society has to counter them. Because threats to society always exist, and the level of protection from these threats never reaches its maximum, national security represents a dynamic means of pursuing and supporting the balance between real and potential threats on the one hand, and the subject's ability to counteract them on the other.

One of the factors that undermines the ability of the state to neutralize threats to its national security is an increase in the interdependency of states upon each other and their openness to external influences. One of the main challenges to the state is that it is no longer the monopolist (and sometimes not even the main player) within its own territory. State influence is becoming increasingly narrowed, corrected, neglected by the actions of other states, international organizations and corporations, non-governmental bodies, informal groupings (pressure groups, lobbies etc. ), organized criminal groups and so on.

The growing complexity of the modern state's social structures causes the non-identity of economic and political powers, and of the economic and political structures of society. The tendency to encourage the dispersal of power leads on the one hand to the formation of a system of different é lite groups that vie for influence in their specific area of activity. On the other hand, the ruling é lite becomes more and more heterogeneous. The centers and the groups of influence within this é lite compete with each other, attempting to widen their spheres of interest and to enhance their own positions within the structures of official power.

Something similar happens in the system of interstate relations: the influence of separate states or of international institutions/corporations on the internal policy of foreign countries increases proportionally to the weakening positions of local ruling institutions.

States that are ideologically, institutionally and economically weak suffer from double pressure, because their power and influence are being eroded and distorted before even having been formed. On account of this it can be asserted that the conflict between the need " to develop the state" and the compelled necessity " to level the state" becomes the core challenge to the national security of these states. The continuing development of this conflict can take an undesired direction: a state is not able utilize the technological, economic, sociological and cultural advantages of globalization, instead it absorbs all of its negative features.

They include the degradation of state power, the anomalous promotion of non-governmental political and economic sources of influence, the development of technological backwardness into strategic backwardness, the erosion of national identity.

In this way, the openness that could potentially foster the receptance of new ideas and technologies, and interdependence as a potential tool in obtaining a rightful place in interstate relations turn into vulnerability, and a threat to the protection and independence of the state.

The strengthening of the connections between political, economic and social subjects both inside the country and in the international arena has a fundamental influence on the process of the determination and realization of the state's national interests. Today the classical conception according to which the state, like a single player, defines its own interests and follows them in international policy does not seem to be working. The state is not a homogeneous formation: not only separate political, social and regional alignments, but also separate institutions of State machinery carry out their own policies and proclaim their own interests that only conditionally can be grouped together under the generalized concept of " the national interest".

On the other hand, the development of a relatively stable, non-contradictory and self coordinated system of national interests, priorities and goals, and the strengthening of their consolidation in the public consciousness is the decisive task of the national é lite in the process of state creation. Moreover, in a situation where the generally accepted national idea remains in a formative state, while the national mentality is split among numerous dimensions and parameters - ecological, political, territorial, ethnic, social, religious etc., a self coordinated complex of national interests, priorities, and goals could promote the consolidation of society around mutually generally accepted, existential values such as " survival", " prosperity", " equality", " freedom", " development", " justice", which are understandable and acceptable to any person.

National interests and correlated values and goals have to form the basis of any sustainable integrative strategy of national security, while the legislative and executive branches of government have to ensure its effective implementation.

Taking into account all of the above, the basic theoretical premises of the present research could be defined in the following way:

1. A clear definition and consolidation in the public consciousness of basic geopolitical priorities and national interests is one of the most important preconditions for the development of an effective external and internal political strategy for the future. Unfortunately these interests and priorities not only have not been consolidated in the national Ukrainian consciousness, but have not even been adequately developed and defined on the state level.

As J. F. Kennedy justly accentuated: " the national interest is more important than ideology". " The point of departure of the foreign policy of any country should be the concept of national interests defined in terms of power", stressed H. Morgenthau, the father of political realism. The formation of a relatively stable, non-contradictory and self coordinated system of national interests and geopolitical priorities is the indispensable precondition for the optimization of state building processes and the elaboration by Ukraine of an effective foreign policy strategy.

2. The survival of Ukraine as a free and independent nation in the contemporary world with its fundamental national interests intact, its economic and political sovereignty and socio-cultural identity secure should become the major principle of Ukrainian strategy in the actualization of its national interests. Another task is the transformation of Ukraine from being an object of great power geopolitical games into a full-bodied subject (independent actor) that defines its goals and behavior itself (taking into account both its own possibilities and the international environment).

3. The only possible priority model for analysis has to be the egocentric model. From the point of view of political realism both the romantic utopianism of the first years of independence and current cowering before large states and international structures and organizations should be rejected. The main problems here include the traditional complex of low self-esteem and the younger brother syndrome. In any case Ukraine is and will remain one of the largest and most powerful countries of Europe. This should be the major premise that sets out Ukraine's basic objectives and manner of behavior. The analysis of Ukraine's interaction with its regional and global environment has to begin with the belief that only its own territory (as a center and a starting point) and its own interests, that are absolutely paramount, can form the core premises for such an analysis.

Paraphrasing a well-known British statement about democracy, it can be maintained that " perhaps the egocentric model is not entirely optimal, but all others are inferior".

4. The popular thesis that Ukraine as a regional power has only regional interests must be regarded as fundamentally wrong. Ukraine has wide-ranging and entirely concrete global interests.

The growing political, economic, scholarly-technical and other presence of Ukraine from Australia to Argentina and Canada, from Norway to South Africa and the Antarctic is evidence of this. It is another matter is that the correlation between regional and global interests in the geopolitical and foreign political strategy of Ukraine somewhere differs from that of the USA, China, or Russia.
5. The geopolitical situation and the historical heritage of Ukraine objectively determine the multidimensional character of Ukrainian foreign political orientations. Nevertheless, this multidimensional element should not appear as a lack of principle and an attempt to ride two horses, moving in opposite directions, at once. These are not original attempts, historically having occurred a number of times and as a rule, with unfortunate endings. Simultaneous orientation on opposing power centers and the balancing on contradictions are dangerous and have always proven to be an effective temporary tactic but poor strategy. Moreover, to be successful this tactic demands an extremely sophisticated political culture and refined " Byzantine" modus operandi, which Ukraine unfortunately lacks.

6. The spread of information technologies today takes a thoroughly important significance. Information as a strategic product appears both as a subject of competition and as a means of defense and the introduction of basic national interests. The ability of society to gather, process, analyze, systematize and accumulate information becomes the core precondition for social and technological progress, a factor in ensuring national security, and the basis for a successful foreign policy.

State passivity and inadequate reaction to the claims and demands of the information age lead to its marginalization in the world's informational sphere, and define backwardness in all other spheres of action - political, economic, and cultural. Progress in the information technologies leads to a high inconstancy in the informational sphere and in this manner forces the state to swiftly adapt to new conditions. Otherwise the state is threatened by the possibility of becoming subject to the domination of another state's (or group of states') informational system, a relegation to a constant sojourn in a foreign informational shadow.

Providing the governmental system and civil society institutions with information, and facilitating the exchange of information between these two key actors in public life becomes one of the decisive factors in the sustainability and effective implementation of an integrated strategy of national state security.

7. Practical implementation has always been and still remains as the basic criterion of any theoretical formulations. This concerns geopolitical as well as foreign and domestic political concepts, strategies and programs. This is why the results of concrete sociological research concerning the geopolitical and foreign political orientations and preferences of the Ukrainian population, and the monitoring of the dynamics of change in public opinion on regional and national levels are widely used as an empirical background for this work.

On the other hand, developed theoretical approaches have formed the basis for a conceptual awareness of new sociological programs for studying the structure and dynamics of the changes of Ukrainian national interests.