№8 / 2017

Culture and politics of the family relationships, upbringing and protection minors as mechanisms of Stakeholder relations in society

Vladyslav Akulov-Muratov, Olga Budko

Part III.

Iceland is an island country with moderate climate and a small population, which has chosen and built for itself the northern social model of society with universal health and education systems free of fear for the future due to the high level of social protection and security. Its geographical location, complex mountainous terrain, difficult weather conditions and a mournful history of existence have undeniably imprinted on the way of life, the character and gender relations of the local population, which have spawned the Icelanders’ habit of calm and measured life in accordance with the requirements of nature. And they left the civilized world that was too active and hasty for them. Therefore, Icelanders are slowly becoming accustomed to the present and little attention is paid to the various conveniences of life offered by the present mankind, because cities (in our usual sense) appeared on the island only in the 1990’s.

Historically formed customs play an important role in the lives of Icelanders: they have not so far abandoned traditional life in villages of the village type on the shores of the island, where houses covered with earth and moss for several hundred years, and the vast majority of inhabitants, like their ancestors , are engaged in cattle breeding, fishing and agriculture. Therefore, the family life of Icelanders is inextricably linked with these types of management.

Women in Iceland are volitional, hard-core and considered to be stronger than men. This was reflected in the national culture and social relations, and especially remembered (since the Middle Ages) in literary monuments – sagas. The reason for such radical changes in women’s behavior and role in society were the peculiarities of national life: Icelandic men spent most of their lives at sea, and women had to cope with all their domestic concerns and problems with their own. Therefore, women in Iceland do not fight for their rights – they have them so much (the first woman in the world-president of the state became the Icelandic). Moreover, traditionally in a family, they all life dominate men. However, Icelanders are the bearers of an amazing cultural system of self-restraint, whose purpose is to preserve, despite all submissiveness, the male self-confidence so that the representatives of the “strong” half would remain good adversaries and defenders. Therefore, women in Iceland and take on all the care of the economy and the upbringing of children, becoming managers in the family.

Such behavior of the Icelandic society is the most striking example of the manifestation of public JIs in northern Europe, built on natural interdependencies and self-restraints, when the environment (as the sum of the elements influencing) becomes one of the main stakeholders (i.e. first-class stakeholders). By the way, traditional beliefs with elements of shamanism and totemism have been preserved in Iceland (despite the forcibly imposed Lutheranism in the XVI century), has created a strange religious diversity and tolerance (Baha’ism, Islam and Buddhism are present in the country, and the Catholic holy things of a large Polish community peacefully coexist alongside the Norwegian elves and the Icelandic aulams and Scouts), has developed a true tolerance in society (since 2010, marriage, as a compulsory social phenomenon, is sexually neutral, and same-sex couples have got all the possible rights and state protection).

In addition, another serious reason and, at the same time, the consequence of such behavior in the family is a very large gap in the length of life between Icelandic men and women (the first ones live much less). And the dominance of women in traditional Icelandic society, the rules and culture of such domination have determined the phenomenon of national media – Icelandic media are considered the most free in the world. As a result, women in Iceland, for the most part, are married to Icelandic men, and in the country there is a large number of single mothers and a large number of children born out of wedlock – so to speak, for themselves. Therefore, incomplete families – a common occurrence in Iceland. However, the emergence of cities on the island has begun processes that are now observed in Finland – only with the opposite sign: the emancipation of men, which began, will slowly and painfully destroy the traditional relationship between the sexes.

Due to the fact that parents spend a lot of time outside the house, and mothers are constantly busy with work, the children are mostly provided to themselves. Therefore, the school day in Iceland lasts much longer than in other countries, taking the children a significant part of their free time. Therefore, due to the fact that the rest of the time the children spend on the street without adult care, national governments were forced to make every effort to ensure their safety. And in this they have achieved great success: Iceland is one of the safest countries in the world.

For the education of children in Icelandic families are taken only when they begin to create serious problems at home or bring trouble to others. Moreover, the methods are quite strict, although parents in their relationships with children are always very patient and democratic: they try to restrict their freedom, but allow different perks in the permissible limits. Therefore, in Iceland there is practically no misunderstanding between generations (the problem of “mothers and children”).

Iceland’s educational system has four levels. It is probably the most illustrative example (among the Nordic countries) of successful introduction and adaptation of foreign experience, imposed on the specificity of national peculiarities, goals and priorities. Therefore, the country has a 100% level of literacy and a high level of education of the population. The benefits of this system are attracting students from other countries through the availability of affordable education at world-class programs, as well as the receipt of various scholarships and grants for research.

The first degree of state education is preschool education. It is conducted in private and state kindergartens, partly controlled by municipalities, but is not obligatory. His program is developed and approved by the national government, and aims at the comprehensive creative development of the child’s personality, his skills and skills to express himself and adequately socialize in the team. As mechanisms of influence are actively used games, different psychological methods, and direct communication with nature. Most Icelanders give children to pre-school institutions, but they have to record in the queue of their children in advance. The payment for them is shared between the municipality and the parents (monthly contributions or with a slight advance). The contract for visiting necessarily indicates the time of stay of the child in a preschool institution.

Secondary education is compulsory for all children in Iceland. It is free in public schools. The school process begins at the Junior School, it takes place in two stages and lasts 10 years (primary (1-7) and basic (8-10 class) schools) for 9 months per year (from September 1 to May 31), five days a week. After the completion of the basic high school, the final examinations are from Icelandic, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish and English, natural sciences and mathematics. Such a filling of the educational process is due not only to the traditions and history of the settlement of Iceland, but also with the accession of the country in 1994 to the European Economic Area, which allowed it to diversify its economy (dependence on fishing) towards the development of high-tech production, economic and financial services.

At the first stage of schooling, children teach all subjects to one teacher; in the second stage, each individual subject has his own teacher. Knowledge is assessed on a ten-point system (max. 10 points). In the afternoon, children can attend various paid leisure centers and clubs. There are also special schools or classes for children in need of a special approach or developmental problems in the country. But such students can also study in regular school collectives. Students are trained independently from the start: each class has its own parent and council, and the children are responsible for the premises attached to them (they monitor their condition and make up for different holidays). An elderly secondary school (the next step in completing secondary education) lasts 4 years and is not compulsory, although it is popular among the Icelanders. Lyceums, gymnasiums, colleges and schools represent it. The tuition is free of charge, but upon receipt, the registration fee is paid (its amount depends on the type of institution). Also, at your own expense, all the necessary books and educational materials are purchased. Examinations are issued several times a year. Knowledge is evaluated in a free form (points, letters, or comments). Upon entering the university it is preferred to gymnasium education, which has several directions in the country: academic – with in-depth study of humanities disciplines; vocational and technical – a combination of theory with practice; general education – the union of the first two directions; professionally specialized – narrow-profile training.

Having a certificate of full secondary education gives you the right to study at a Higher School offered in Iceland by universities with a three-level system of study (undergraduate, postgraduate and postgraduate). All HEIs in the country are under the control of the Ministry of Education and Culture, and fulfill its requirements for educational programs. Entry to them requires the collection and submission of a package of documents in accordance with the faculty of the chosen university, apostilling documents on prior education and passing the profile entrance exams.

There are 9 universities in Iceland, three of which are state-owned (tuition is free of charge, but with the introduction of a compulsory entrance fee). Private universities are paid, but students have special tuition or scholarships. For undergraduate and postgraduate students, all HEIs provide grants for conducting various research. Moreover, students can skip magistracy if they have an idea for scientific development, and immediately start writing a dissertation, in turn launching a startup. Iceland has the most favorable conditions for science, but it is very difficult to start its own business – an extremely small but well-off island population, stable social and stakeholder ties.

The international program of the Interstate Association of Postgraduate Education, which increases the qualification level of managers and specialists, presents further education in Iceland. To train foreigners in Iceland, there is a procedure that includes: the challenge of a national educational institution, medical insurance, own means of living (foreign students are not allowed to work). And for those who come to live and work in the country, there are evening city courses of state or English.

Medical care in Iceland is high-quality, paid, expensive and based on an insurance basis. However, insurance covers only part of the cost of the patient – the doctor’s fee is paid. The financial budget of the Icelandic national health care system is formed at the expense of fairly high tax levies collected from the country’s residents by state and municipal government organizations. Therefore, free medical care is provided only to minors, adults who have a permanent job and pay tax fees (monitored by a mandatory identification code), and, if necessary, to conduct urgent medical treatment.

The entire territory of Iceland is divided into 50 medical districts with 25 functioning hospitals. In the country, all medicines undergo rigorous state control, and most of them are sold on prescription. After the global economic crisis in 2008, Iceland’s high-tech medicine turned to England, Norwegians and Swedes coming to the country for medical tourism – the prices for doctors’ services here are 50-60% lower than in Germany, Sweden or Finland. In Iceland, one of the highest rates of life and very low rates of infant mortality. Pregnant women are inspected and advised by a district doctor who must be required to attend the visit. If he deems it necessary, then tests are performed and a specialist sends the patient by appointment, to the hospital for consultation.

Through the semi-isolation of the island’s population for hundreds of years, Iceland, like Spain, has faced the problem of a large number of genetic problems in its inhabitants due to frequent incest. Therefore, in a country of great development, it was genetics whose main task was to help people with congenital genetic disorders. So Iceland has become a large genetic laboratory. After all, 1% of its population is on the verge between insanity and pronounced creativity (geneticists have found that creativity and psychosis have general genetic roots). Therefore, among the Icelandic youth from 2013 a widespread mobile application that warns of the threat of slander has become widespread.

Family-tribal relations among the Icelanders (with all the piety of the attitude to them: the pride of their ancestors, knowledge of their pedigree, etc.) slowly begin to collapse – with the advent of homes elderly parents parents are increasingly going there, so as not to be a burden to their own children and grandchildren. In the past, usually younger children came to their parents to provide them with a decent old age and always be close to providing the necessary help. Now, due to a more active way of life, when Icelandic women are forced to work in the cities, the Icelandic government has taken care of the elderly by providing them with the necessary assistance in public institutions. And at the same time, freeing time for young people who can now devote more of his time to his family and work.

Iceland, as well as Norway, has taken a lot from Denmark and Sweden during their historic domination. This island country is the most striking and important example in the Northern Europe of successful adaptation of borrowed social technologies, an effective search for its place in the new economic order of the world and the total insecurity of a small state from its global influences. Thanks to the peculiarities of the national mentality and the construction of a society, JIs in the country have been maximally developed and have ensured the marginal stability of the Icelandic ethnic group in the face of processes of mass cross-border and cross-cultural transfer of traditions and socio-psychological behavioral settings in the modern globalized world. Ability to manage the resources properly and the concern of Icelandic authorities about their people should serve as good examples for Ukrainians.

Northern Europe, possessing a regional similarity of natural conditions and socio-economic structure of its states, turned out to be very diverse in terms of cultural and political traditions of the attitude of society and adults to the education of children and adolescents, the protection of the rights and interests of minors.

However, in the region there are persistent (mixed and transitional) types of JIs – both in society and in families, and in interpersonal forms of communication. Therefore, in spite of the different initial conditions of origin, organization and modern development of these countries (Sweden is developing at the expense of the spirit of the nation, Denmark – family ties, Norway and Iceland – clan-tribal mutual assistance, Finland – national paternalism) can be used only certain combinations of mechanisms of public administration in the field of education and protection of children (in the schemes of these areas of interweaving and duplication of functions).

This is due to the fact that the Northern model of capitalism (preserving the spirit of struggle and imperial expansion) has organized a system of economic relations, consisting of many small cycles (fractal), which in principle do not allow the emergence of processes of development and institutional transfer of many types of social structures , and gave it stability due to the high degree of mutabelnost, based on the interchangeability of its elements (in the schemes of this zone of rupture and divergence of functions).

It means that cross-cultural, transboundary transfer of experience of public administration in order to form and effectively use new members of society with the given characteristics, adaptation, and introduction of the proposed models of social and stakeholder interactions will be possible and quite effective within this regional system of economic and political relations. However, global changes in the world’s human needs will be devastating for such a socio-economic model of society.

New World Dimension

Vyacheslav Tsivatyy

(Review of the monograph: Zernetska O.V. Global communication: monograph / Olga Vasilivna Zernetska – Kyiv, Naukova dumka, 2017. – 350 p.

The monograph of the doctor of political sciences, professor, head of global and civilization problems of the Institute of World History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Olga Zerinnka opens a new direction in science – global communication. This is a combination of globalization, which for 20 years has acquired the status of a separate science and communication science, which has recently become not only a science but also the most acute weapon in the twenty-first century military conflicts. Cyberwar, cyber optics, cyber attacks, cyber security, cyberbullying – this is a new conceptual apparatus that has entered the armed forces of the leading countries of the world, into the political vocabulary and the discourse of international relations. All these are the menacing realities of our day and all this is part of the multidimensional phenomenon that global communication deals with.

Olga Zernetska’s monograph was published in the “Naukova Dumka” publishing house in the “Science Book” project. And this is a truly scientific publication, which is arguably demonstrating the vital necessity of such a new discipline. The author develops a broad and systematic conceptual-categorical apparatus of a new branch. She also looks at the history of science, which preceded the emergence of global communication. Undoubtedly, the emergence of this new industry has contributed to a truly revolution of opening in the field of high technology. In particular, the widespread adoption of the Internet by the general public and its potential for the development of various forms of Internet communication: for example, the emergence of the global blogosphere and social networks.

Today, global communication covers virtually all spheres of public life: politics, economy, culture, security, and others. Complex, ambiguous and multicomponent processes taking place in the humanitarian field at the end of the 20th – early XXI century require an interdisciplinary approach. In the researcher’s opinion, “they are productive precisely because the effects of globalization affect and change such subtle and vulnerable matters as the life of the human spirit, the attitude of the individual, the world of human experience (the fact that the philosopher Edmund Husserl – the founder of phenomenology – called Lebenswelt, that is world life): in the end, – the cultural identity of whole peoples” (p. 85).

Analyzing the global culture in this context, the author considers the globalization processes such as concentration and conglomeration, transnationalization and internationalization of news agencies, global media empires and other related businesses in the context of the rapid development of information and communication systems. The researcher notes that at the same time there is a rapid convergence at the innovation and technical and technological levels.

Powerful translation of the content content of the dominant – Western – mass culture becomes global in nature and transforms it, in essence, into a global culture. It fills the world’s information space, freely crossing the state borders, without asking its citizens about the desirability of their presence in the national information spaces of individual states, regions and even continents. It becomes a real challenge to state and national sovereignty, distorting and destroying national cultures.

The author pays a lot of attention to the main actors of global communication. The rapid change in the world is causing new challenges and threats in global communications management. In the researcher’s opinion, this significantly influences the geopolitical picture of the world order. The researcher provides a constructive analysis of the transformation of functions and status of the main actors in the field of global communication management in the geopolitics of the XXI century. After analyzing them thoroughly, Olga Zernetka concludes that in addition to the main traditional actors-states, in addition to the main traditional actors-states, new actors – such as international organizations, intergovernmental unions, transnational corporations and global civil society – come out and powerfully declare themselves. However, their opportunities and potentials are not equal. In particular, a large part of the authorities’ power is increasingly penetrating the media empire. According to the author, the most striking example of corporate concentration in the media and information industries is the fact that today, only a dozen transnational corporations that are the largest corporations in the world, such as Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, Tele-communications Inc., dominate the global media market., News Corp., Samsung, Seagram (Universal Studios), General Electric (NBC Owner), Phillips (Poligram Owner).

The researcher convincingly argues that the oligopolistic nature of global TNCs and the power accumulated in the hands of these groups grows at an unprecedented pace and that this is not just about forming public opinion, socio-cultural tastes, standards and guidelines, the orderliness of hierarchies, ideals and values, but also about the influence on the political preferences of the audience, support for the status quo existing in the state, and more and more reelection of the functions of political communication in society. All this leads to mediaization of politics.

According to Olga Zernetska, in this paradigm of power relations of particular importance are elite groups and elite institutions that have access to not only information but also important public discourses and communication channels. Therefore, the creation of its typology of global mediacracy, which includes such owners of multimedia empires as Rupert Murdoch, Silvio Berlusconi, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Emilio Oscaraga Milmo, Roberto Marigno, Leo Kirsch, Carey Packer, Mark Zuckerberg and many others, can be fully-fledged call it a personal contribution not only to the theory of global communication, but also to the theory of elites.

Continuing to consider global media in political communications, the author attaches great importance to satellite news as a new stage in global communication. She closely monitors the discrepancies in the CNN / US (that is, the channel for the domestic use of the American audience, which was launched by Ted Turner in 1980) and CNN International (CNNI), which has deployed its global activities since 1985. The researcher proves that CNNI has long overwhelmed the function of a purely news channel, since it is now used by statesmen, politicians, top managers of economic and financial businesses, international non-governmental organizations, extremist groups and others, and as a tribune, using which they can declare their intentions and decisions on the whole world, and as a carrier of various, but first and foremost – diplomatic, messages. She concludes that “globally disclosed message – a new form of diplomatic discourse”, a new mechanism of relations in the practice of international relations. This form is also new in comparison with centuries of proven methods of secret diplomacy, ie, the arsenal of diplomatic methods is expanding (P.153), because of the motility, openness, effectiveness of influence, requirements of the rapid reaction of the political recipient. The author notes that at the same time, the process of further mediaization of international relations is taking place, which is especially noticeable in times of crisis in the world. The activities of such global news channels as BBC World and Al Jazeera are also thoroughly analyzed.

The researcher deeply analyzes the types of blogs, typologies them and separately selects and explores the political blogs that in their totality form the political blogosphere in each country, and on a planetary scale one can speak of creating a global political blogosphere. She resorted to a detailed analysis of political blogs during the US presidential election, Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. And it determines the effectiveness of using personal blogs, such as Twitter, which helped to become US President Donald Trump in 2016.

With the interdisciplinary approach inherent in the author, she details the economic issues of global media, especially during the last financial and economic crisis. The author reveals the model of the survival of media empires in a crisis situation, paying particular attention to aggressive strategies in the anti-crisis struggle, analyzes the situation in Latin American information and communication space during the crisis, writes about the difficult situation in the Internet, a kind of “apple of disagreement” in a crisis situation, about the new megatrend of the competitive struggle on the Internet: cloud computing. All this gives Olga Zernetska the opportunity to reach such important conclusions: “The specificity of the development of the information and communication sphere in the context of the global systemic crisis is that, unlike many industries covered by the crisis, this sphere continues to grow wildly. Another distinction is that this sector of the economy is the unpredictability of many development trends, as technical advances in the information and communication sector are at a faster pace than most other industries. […] In order to be a leader in this field, the company it’s only a matter of responding to existing user requests. As Apple Inc. has convincingly demonstrated, it is necessary to invent and create something revolutionary, but something that will be perceived by users as a long-awaited and desirable one. This is the supreme, masterful strategic concept of Apple that can be called benchmark for those companies that want to go ahead (each in their business), especially during the global systemic crisis” (p. 210).

Analyzing media systems and information and communication technologies in Ukraine in the transitive period, especially during the period of the global economic crisis, the author offers recommendations to the Ukrainian state system in the media and information and communication technologies that would bring the national information and communication sphere to a higher level in global communication. . She is convinced that the implementation of her recommendations will not only promote the development of media and information and communication technologies in Ukraine, but will also greatly contribute to the consolidation and mobilization of society, help to respond in a timely manner to painful socio-cultural, economic, political, legal and linguistic challenges and relieve social tension. This, undoubtedly, will contribute to the democratic development of the Fatherland, inextricably linked with the increase of the general culture of the population, the rooting and development of national values and ideals.

The problem of cybersecurity has become extremely urgent now. Olga Zernetska gives her analysis a prominent place. Firstly, it deeply and qualitatively analyzes the evolution of US strategies, beginning with an explanation of the conceptual-categorical apparatus used precisely in the United States in this field. Secondly, it systematically reviews US cybersecurity strategies from the time of George W. Bush’s presidency until Barack Obama. Thirdly, the researcher focuses on the main issues that are the national interests of this state in cyberspace, which allows the author to highlight the process of developing a strong, effective US national security policy.

Deeply analyzing the US experience in developing and implementing cybersecurity strategies, Olga Zernetka concludes that “the protection of Ukraine’s cyberspace despite the fact that the potential of the US and our country is far from equal, yet has prospects. This potential is human capital, invaluable intellectual worthiness of our people, starting from the students who master the computer quickly and deeply and “shiver” in cyberspace, and to the students, lecturers, professors and specialists in this field in various academic and branch institutes. Of Ukraine. If the authorities manage to stop brain drain from Ukraine, create appropriate conditions for professionals in these sectors, the Ukrainian response to cyber threats, both global and regional, will be able to quickly become one of the priority areas of Ukraine’s development” (pp. 283-284). The researcher is concerned not only with the global significance of the problem. Not less attention is given to cybersecurity of the individual, especially in social networks, including Facebook, MySpace, FriendWise, Yahoo! and many others. At the heart of her attention are children, teens and youth. Tips for them are not superfluous for adult social network users, especially for politicians of all ranks.

The last section of the monograph by Olga Zernetskaya is devoted to global communication in the context of sustainable development. It focuses here on analyzing the challenges and threats of the global digital divide by pre-implementing a sociolinguistic, semiotic, discourse analysis and political analysis of the concepts of “digital divide” and “global digital divide” in various definitions and idioms as the main concepts used by them in theories of the information society and knowledge society.

The researcher identifies the global divide gap as “the gap in access to information and communication technologies between different countries of the world” (p. 316). Consequently, one of the main challenges for politicians at the national and international levels is to overcome the divisive gap between rich and poor countries, rural and urban areas, men and women, skilled and unskilled workers, large and small industries, taking into account ethical and racial differences, cultural and civilization aspects, etc. The author, using data from international organizations in this field, analyzes the situation and suggests ways to overcome the threats of global digital divide. She analyzed almost all available formats of TV shows in Ukraine, Great Britain, France and the United States. (Here, as in the writing of the monograph as a whole, she is helped by the brilliant knowledge of English and French languages). I think that the reader simply gets pleasure, having fallen into the diverse world of political, cultural, educational and entertainment programs that she is analyzing. But behind this is the great idea of preserving nature in the world, maintaining the life on our planet by methods of global communication.

Preface to the monograph of Olga Zernetskaya, written by academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Oleg Grigorovich Byelorus, who essentially initiated the study of globalization at the academic level in Ukraine, has a clear title: “Global communication – the nervous system of globalization”. In it, he gives high praise to the monographic study of Olga Zernetskaya. We are happy to join her. After all, this is an innovative work in the field of social sciences, for the first time in Ukraine, on the territory of the CIS and Western Europe in monographic form is devoted to global communication.

Revival and Destruction of the Black Sea Fleet and the new decline of Sevastopol (1860-1917)

Alla Lykova


The article discusses the causes and conditions for the revival of the destruction of the Black Sea Fleet, Sevastopol decline in the period from 1860 to 1917. The role of these processes in the domestic policy of the Russian Government, foreign intervention, revolutionary movement, political action and essers.

Analyzed the value of imperfect foreign policy of the Russian Empire the diplomats for destruction of the Black Sea Fleet, the further fate of the city of Sevastopol and its decline.

Keywords: Crimea, the Black Sea Fleet, Russia, history, Sevastopol, foreign intervention, bolshevic revolytionary movement, mensheviki and essers.

The foundation and development of Sevastopol is due to the Black Sea Fleet. It is this that determines his appearance, his biography, his life. Sevastopol grew and developed along with the fleet. From the bays of Sevastopol, the ships of the Black Sea Fleet went towards the enemy and returned with victories. Glory of the fleet was the glory of Sevastopol. Together with the sailors, Sevastopol shared the joy of victory and bitterness of defeats. This city is young. In 2018, it will be only 235 years old. In April 1783, a month after the Crimea joined Russia, a Russian squadron of the Azov and Dnipro flotilla ships under the command of Vice Admiral F.A. Klokacheva entered the Sevastopol bay (then it was called Akhtiarskaya Bay). [1].

Admiral Mikhail Lazarev, a hereditary navigator, a scientist, one of the discoverers of Antarctica, a hero of the Battle of Navaren, made a lot for the development of the city and the fleet. He commanded the Black Sea Fleet before the Crimean War for eighteen years. Under his leadership almost completely renewed the composition of the fleet of ships, a new Admiralty was built, and five new powerful coastal batteries were built, two of which, Konstantinovska and Mikhailovskaya, have been preserved to this day. Sevastopol on the eve of the Crimean War numbered about fifty thousand people. The city was decorated with new buildings, well-planned streets appeared.

During 15 years after the severe Crimean War, Sevastopol lay in ruins. The value of the city has decreased so much that it was included in the Yalta district of the Tavriya province. In the early 1860s, only a few wooden buildings were rebuilt in the center of the city, rebuilt from French lobsters, where confectioneries, photo studios, drinking establishments, shops for the sale of soulet and soda water were located. Only in 1870, strengthened thanks to reforms, economic growth and the many-year efforts of Russian diplomacy, Russia refused to comply with the terms of the Paris Peace Treaty, and on March 1, 1871, the London Convention, which abolished those articles that humiliated Russia, was signed. The country had the opportunity to begin the revival of the fleet and Sevastopol. For the reliable connection of the base of the future fleet with the center of the country in 1875 Lozovoy-Sevastopol railway was built. September 15, the first train came to Sevastopol. From that moment, a quick recovery of the city began. In 1862, the population of the city was about 5 thousand, and in 1886 – 25 thousand, in 1895 it reached the pre-war level, and in 1900 in Sevastopol already inhabited 58 thousand inhabitants.

Two factors have contributed to the revival of the city. Firstly, in Sevastopol there was opened a trading port, which was allowed to enter foreign vessels. Along with him were built dozens of warehouses for grain, salt and other goods. There were times when up to 4 thousand loaders worked in the port. If in 1875 from Sevastopol were sent abroad 575 thousand pounds of various cargoes, then in 1888 – already 32 million pounds. The Russian Shipping and Trade Union played a huge role in the revival of the port and civil shipbuilding. Thanks to the efforts of its director N.A. Arkas, a former naval officer in Sevastopol, began the creation of a trading port and the revival of the Admiralty, which began to repair from 1861, and since 1868 – and to build civilian ships. The Admiralty was one of the most important enterprises not only for the city but also for the whole Crimea. In 1888, about a thousand people worked there, while in other enterprises of the city – only 265 [2].

Secondly, in connection with the beginning of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1888, the main events of which unfolded in the Balkans, the southern vector in the policy of the empire again became decisive. In the course of hostilities, Bulgarians were freed from the Turks, and Russian troops approached Constantinople. International tensions in the region have risen sharply again. Strengthening Russia’s military strength on the southern direction was urgently needed. The rapid unification of naval base and navy in Sevastopol began. The combination of commercial and military factors helped Sevastopol quickly recover in the 70-80 years of the XIX century. Moreover, Russia was in a stage of a violent economic recovery, caused by the abolition of serfdom and other reforms [3].

The main reasons for the reforms were: the crisis of the feudal system, the riots of the peasants, which intensified during the Crimean War. The peasants to whom the tsarist government sought help, calling to the militia, hoped that thus they deserved the liberation from serfdom after the end of the war. Peasants’ hopes did not come true. The number of peasant performances increased. If for ten years (from 1848 to 1854) there were 348 performances, then during the next six years (from 1855 to 1861) – 474.

It should be noted that in the greater territory of the Russian Empire there was no serfdom: in all the Siberian, Asian, Far Eastern gubernias and in the Cossack regions, in the North Caucasus, in the Transcaucasus, in Finland and in Alaska. However, in these territories lived only about a quarter of the total population of the empire.

Principles of land management of peasants, which are the basis of reform, intersect with the ideas of K.D. Kavelina and V.O. Kokoriev, who had a wide public resonance in the 1850s. Thus, in the “Note on the Release of Peasants” (1855), Kavelin offered to buy land to the peasants through a loan and payment for 37 years for 5% each year through a special peasant bank. And for the “Regulation on peasants who came out from under feudal dependence,” the peasants paid to the execution for 49 years 6% per annum from the loan received. As Kavelin said, regarding the necessity of remuneration for landlords, and for the reform, the landlords eventually received 0% of the treasury papers as compensation, etc. The peasant underground bank, for which Cavelin was advocating, was created in 1883. Kokarev in the article “Billion in the Fog” (1859) proposed a plan for the redemption of peasants by the means of capital of a specially created private bank. He proposed to liberate the peasants with the land, and landlords to pay money through peasants paid for a loan for 37 years [4].

According to historians, unlike the commissions of Nicholas I, where neutral faces and specialists in the agrarian question prevailed (including Kisilov, Bibikov and others), now the preparation of a peasant problem was entrusted to large feudal landlords (including Panin and Muravev’s ministers who changed Kisilova and Bibikova, and the head of the Secret Committee on landlord peasants A.F. Orlov), which largely determined the results of the reform. At the same time, historian L.G .Zakharova points out that among them there were representatives of the “liberal bureaucracy” (N.A. Milutin), who were guided by the moral idea of the liquidation of feudal law. Since January 1857, a new Peacekeeping Committee has been approved, consisting of 11 people (former chief of the gendarmes, A.F. Orlov, M.N. Muravyov, P.P. Gagarin and others). On July 26, Minister of Internal Affairs and a member of the Committee S. Lansky was presented with an official reform project. It was proposed to create in each province nobility committees that had the right to make amendments to the project. This program was legalized on November 20 in a rescript called Valencian Governor-General V.I. Nazimova.

The Government Program, set out in the rescript of Emperor Alexander II of December 20, 1857, to Vilna Governor-General V.I. Namimov, provided for the destruction of the individual dependence of the peasants when the entire land stored in the property of the landlords (power over the peasants also remained with the landlords), giving the peasants some land allotment for which they will have to pay a dues or to act as a corpse, and eventually the right to buy back peasant farms (residential house and household buildings). Legal dependence was eliminated not immediately, but only after a transitional period (10 years). The script was published and sent to the governors of the country.

After the start of Alexander II in 1870, the municipal self-government reform in Sevastopol was elected city council, which included representatives of the nobility and trade and industrial circles. With the start of the city’s rebirth, its status rises again in 1873. Sevastopol is expelled from the Tavriya province, and the Sevastopol city council approved the royal decree. The head of the city was both a civilian leader and a military commander of the Sevastopol port. In civil affairs, he was subordinate to the Novorossiysk Governor-General, who was in Odessa, and the military – to the Naval Office. The first Sevastopol mayor became the hero of the First Defense counter-admiral P.A. Pereleshin The history has preserved the names of a number of prominent citizens, patriots of Sevastopol who occupied this post and made a great contribution to the revival of the city and the fleet: M.I. Kazi, S.O. Kefeli – in the XIX century, O.O. Maksimov – in the beginning of XX century [5]. In order to strengthen the political work among the sailors in 1904, the Bolshevik Central Fleet Committee of the military organization of the RSDLP, established in the history of the name “Sailor’s Cemetery”, was established in the city. Alexander Petrov, Ivan Yakhnovsky, Ivan Cherniy and Semen Deinega headed the Committee.

After the Third Congress of the RSDLP, held in London in April 1905, the Sevastopol Committee, in fulfilling the decision of the congress, began intensifying the armed uprising. A simultaneous insurrection was planned at the ships of the fleet of squadrons, and then together with residents and the garrison seized power in Sevastopol, which was supposed to become the center of the revolution in the south of the country. But on June 14, 1905, in anticipation of these events, a revolutionary explosion on the battleship Prince Potemkin Tavriysky, one of the newest ships, broke out. The miner № 267, the ship “Prut”, the battleship “Georij Pobedonosets” (the latter, due to treachery, was soon planted on the streets on the Odessa raids) joined him.

Sevastopolians supported the “Potemkin” by a six-thousandth demonstration. Expecting the arrival of the battleship in Sevastopol, revolutionary workers, sailors and soldiers began preparations for an armed uprising. In November 1905, revolutionary banners again floated on the mastheads of the naval warships. In the Sevastopol uprising involved crews of 14 warships, sailors of the Naval Division, port workers, soldiers of a separate merchant company and other parts. In June 1906 soldiers of Sevastopol fortress artillery rebelled. In May 1907, an armed uprising was being prepared at the squadron, but the fleet command managed to alert him. At the end of 1910 and early 1911, revolutionary riots broke out among the soldiers of the garrison.

In 1912, the Bolshevik organizations of the Black Sea Fleet were preparing a new uprising on ships. It was planned to start simultaneously with the uprising in the Baltic Fleet, but as a result of betrayal the plan failed. The revolutionary performances of sailors and workers were not suspended during the years of the imperialist war. In the city and in the fleet there were Social-Democratic organizations. In 1916, the government managed to disclose the social-democratic organizations of Sevastopol. About five hundred people were arrested and put to trial, Vice-Admiral Kolchak, commanding a fleet of about a thousand revolutionary sailors (for this post, a fanatical reactionary and a future contender for the post of supreme ruler of was appointed in August 1916) sent to other navies and remote garrisons [6]. The Bolshevik organizations of Sevastopol and the Black Sea Fleet were hit hard. They, in essence, were defeated.

On the February Revolution of 1917, the civilian population of Sevastopol and the military learned on March 4. On the same day, a military-executive committee was created. At the same time, the committees led by the Mensheviks and SRs appeared in enterprises, in parts and on ships. Soon, the Military Executive Committee began to be called the united central military-executive committee (OTSVV). He included representatives of the military and conductors in order to capture the movement. Almost simultaneously, a council of workers ‘and soldiers’ deputies was established in the city, which enjoyed the authority of sailors. Understanding this, OTSVV made attempts to unite with the council. Thus, a single Sevastopol council of deputies of the army, the fleet and workers who had elected the central executive committee was created.

The Bolshevik Military Revolutionary Committee proclaimed Soviet power on December 16 (29), December 1917. However, in the city all the power was in the hands of the commander of the Fleet Kolchak. As before, there was a city council and the city in the city. Thus, the dual power that was established in Petrograd appeared in Sevastopol. About the victory of the October insurgency in Sevastopol learned on October 26. The authorities in the city seized the council of military and workers’ deputies. The Mensheviks and SRs chaired it. The Central Committee of the Black Sea Fleet (Center Fleet), which declared itself the supreme authority in the fleet carried out the fleet management at the bottom of the October coup. The General Black Sea Naval Congress, which began work in Sevastopol on November 16, 1917, played an important role in uniting the revolutionary forces of the navy and the city. He decided to support the II All-Russian Congress of Soviets and assured that the sailors would be a reliable combat revolutionary detachment in the struggle against all counter-revolutionary forces.

The position of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries who ruled the Sevastopol council caused not only indignation among the Bolsheviks, but also among non-party workers, soldiers and sailors. On December 13, the Bolshevik faction of Sevastopol Council announced the withdrawal of its representatives from the executive committee of the council, and on the night of December 16, 1917, a Bolshevik military-revolutionary committee was created in Sevastopol (chairman Yu.P. Haven), who took power into his own hands. [7]

The Soviet authorities in Sevastopol, as in Crimea, did not last long. Breaking the Brest Treaty, Germany began military action. On April 18, its troops captured Perekop and pushed deep into the peninsula. On May 1, the Germans seized the entire peninsula, including Sevastopol. On November 9, 1918, a bourgeois-democratic revolution took place in Germany, and on November 13, the Soviet authorities announced the annulment of the Brest Peace Treaty and led a struggle to liberate the territories occupied by Germany. On November 15, evacuation of German sailors and soldiers from Sevastopol began. Soon they left the city and the entire peninsula. In place of the German invaders, on November 23 Anglo-French invaders came. And after them began to arrive White Guard troops. Until April 29, 1919, the Anglo-French invaders ruled in Sevastopol.

The most numerous and well-motivated troops were Germany, Austria – Hungary, Britain, Japan and Poland. The personal composition of other states did not understand the need for their stay in Russia. In addition, French troops in 1919 clashed with the danger of revolutionary fermentation under the influence of events in Russia. The German and Anglo-French intervention inflicted enormous material damage on Sevastopol. The damage done by the Germans, according to the calculations of the special commission, is 2 563 321 811 rubles. Anglo-German invaders drove out all serviceable vessels, others robbed and destroyed. Only from the warehouses of the Sevastopol Military Port they took out property worth 5 billion rubles. Material losses incurred by the civilian population amounted to more than 500 thousand rubles in gold.

The seizure of power by the Bolsheviks marked the transition of a civilian confrontation into a new-armed phase – a civil war.


1. Garmash P. “Hero City Sevastopol” / P. Garmash – Simferopol, Publishing House “Tavria”, 1975.

2. Shavshin V. Balaklava / V. Shavshin – Simferopol, Publishing House “Tavria”, 1990.

3. Tarle E.V. Crimean War. / E.V. Tarle. – M., 2003. T.2.

4. Stolipin P.A. “We need Great Russia” /P.A. Stolypin – Moscow. Publishing house “Young Guard”, 1991.

5. Naida S.F. “History of the hero-city of Sevastopol” / S.F. Naida – Kiev, Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, 1958.

6. Vaneev G.I. Sevastopol is 200 years old. Collection of documents and materials / G.I. Vaneyev. – Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1983.

7. Semin G.I. “Sevastopol”. I. Semin – M .: Military Publishing House of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR, 1955.

Macedonian problem in the European political-diplomatic dialogue of the first quarter of the twentieth century: institutional aspect

Vyacheslav Tsivatyy

Review of the monograph: Gurinova O.N. The Macedonian question in international relations 1913-1920: monograph / О.N. Gurinova. – Kharkov: KhNU named after V.N. Karazin, 2015. – 304 p. ISBN 978-966-285-245-5

In 2015, at the publishing house of Kharkiv National University named after V.N. Karazin published a unique scientific publication – monograph prof. Oksana Gurinova “Macedonian Question in International Relations 1913 – 1920”.

The monograph is the first in the historiography of a comprehensive study of the complex circumstances that changed the political content and led to the development of the Macedonian issue in international relations 1913 – 1920 years. Due to the systematization, synthesis and analysis of a large amount of actual material, the Macedonian problem was studied, taking into account not only political but ethno-national factors, which enabled the author to reveal the entire spectrum of this complex phenomenon. In detail, from different angles, the consequences of the dismemberment of Macedonia, in particular the situation in the Macedonian lands that left Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Albania, were identified. In the monograph the author managed to make a versatile and more thorough analysis of the source base, which made it possible to submit the research question in the new institutional and regional discourses. The monograph analyzes the similarities and differences between the positions of the great powers from the Macedonian question, evaluates the influence of the political changes in 1917-1918 in Russia on the fate of Macedonia and others.

In the conclusions the author rightly emphasizes that the settlement of the Macedonian knot of contradictions in the context of the formation of the Versailles system of international relations was carried out without the participation of emigre Macedonian organizations that called for the winners to review and fair solution to the Macedonian issue. The monograph of Professor Oksana Gurinova is an original, modern and up-to-date scientific research analyzing the regional, international-political, international legal, institutional and historical peculiarities of international relations in the Balkans of the early twentieth century in the formation of a new world order.

The main conclusions of the work are made by the Ukrainian researcher as a result of the involvement in the scientific analysis of new documents of Ukrainian and foreign archives, materials of domestic and foreign periodicals, etc. The specialist words of gratitude deserve also the scientific editor of the peer-reviewed publication Sergey Strashnyuk, candidate of historical sciences, associate professor of the department of new and modern history, director of the Center for Bulgarian Studies and Balkan Studies named after Marina Drinova of the Kharkiv National University named after V.N. Karazin. He managed to convey to the reader the scientific complexity of the monograph through the skill of editorial art.

The reviewers of this work are Mikhail Stanchev, a diplomat, a doctor of historical sciences, a professor, a head of the department of modern and new history of the Kharkiv National University named after V.N. Karazin and Dmitry Mikolenko, Ph.D. in History, Associate Professor of the Department of New and Newest History of the V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Significance of the reviewed monograph adds relevance of the research. For the Balkan states, Ukraine and the world community of peoples, the period of the first quarter of the twentieth century turned out to be rich in the decisive events in this region, which drastically changed their further historical development on the European continent under the conditions of the polycentric world and in the system of international legal coordinates.

The following thematic chapters (chapters) are included in the reviewed monograph: Section 1. “Historiography and source study base of research”; Section 2 “Macedonian problem on the eve and at the beginning of the First World War (August 1913 – October 1915)”; Section 3 “The War in Macedonia and the Great Powers (October 1915 – November 1918)” and section 4 “The Macedonian Question During the Establishment of the Versailles System (November 1918 – January 1920)”. The monograph ends with a bibliography, a list of conditional abbreviations, notes and documentary applications (pp. 224-302).

Of particular interest is Chapter 3 “The War in Macedonia and the Great Powers (October 1915-November 1918)” (P. 119-171), in which the author analyzes the military events at the Thessaloniki Front and the Balkan policy of the Entente States through the prism of the Macedonian question in the period from October 1915 to February 1917. A separate unit is devoted to the occupation of Bulgaria by Vardar and Southeast Macedonia. In the conclusions to the section, the author analyzes the impact of the new balance of power in Europe on the Macedonian territories (from March 1917 to November 1918).

Analyzing the factual material of the investigated period of international relations in Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century, prof. O. Gurinova touches upon many debatable issues and joins the scientific colloquium with his Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, Russian, American, and Ukrainian researchers, such as P. Dimitrov, G.D. Shkundin, K. Aleksandrov, K. Manchev, V.A. Burbiha, N.V. Strelchuk and others. The Macedonian question has always been one of the central places in the international relations of the first half of the twentieth century. The author of the monograph rightly accentuates the reader’s attention to the fact that the definition of ethnicity and nationality of the Slavic population of Macedonia is considered by modern scholars as the main problem of Macedonics (p. 220).

Today, in the context of the globalization processes of the polycentric world, as in the years of the First World War, numerous habits of other peoples have undergone a substantial revision. For example, Professor B. Laurie, who studied diaries of French soldiers and officers serving on the Thessaloniki front in 1915-1918, concluded that they had the words “Macedonian” and “Macedonian” in relation to the inhabitants of Aegean Macedonia as ethnonyms, and not as a regional characteristic. More detailed discussion of this issue can be found in D. Bechev’s publication (Bechev D. Macedonia to Macedonia: Exchange all the contexts in the trade of Balkani [conference organized by the Institute for Slavic and Exact European Studies, London] / D. Bechev // Macedonian Pregl. – 2001. – No. 3. – P. 136. ).

It is likely that this is the first collective use of ethnonym “Macedonian”, about which today information is preserved. Of course, in the 21st century, the very fact of the existence of the Macedonian nation, and the time of its occurrence and the stages of national development, the stages of the formation of statehood, are not subject to discussion.

Macedonia is constantly in the system of international politics and political-diplomatic relations – both in the historical past, which is devoted to the peer-reviewed monograph, and in the European international-political present. The small Balkan country of Macedonia is officially called the United Nations “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. At the same time, we draw your attention to the fact that, firstly, modern Macedonia has nothing to do with ancient Macedonia as part of Ancient Hellas; and secondly, Macedonia, as a historical and geographical region, is larger than the modern Republic of Macedonia. Aegean Macedonia from the city of Thessaloniki is part of Greece, and Pyrrine Macedonia – in the territory of Bulgaria. The territory of the present Republic of Macedonia is only Vardar Macedonia.

The lack of traditions of state building for many centuries, the interference of neighboring states in the process of nation-building, the variegated ethnic composition of the population – all this determined and conditioned the specifics of a particular historical situation in the country at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The Macedonian question as an international problem arose in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, but today it remains relevant.

Prof. O. Gurinova noted in the conclusions of the monograph that the main factors of the events of 1913 – 1920 around the Macedonian question and Macedonia was “… its geopolitical location in the center of the Balkans, the close connection of the Macedonian issue with the general situation in Europe and the world, in the contradictions between the Balkans and” large “countries, their lack of interest in the emergence of the Macedonian state in those or other borders” (p. 223).

In general, the monograph in the final clauses states that the analysis of the historical conditions of the emergence and development of a special Macedonian knot of contradictions in the early twentieth century, its role in foreign policy of the great powers and interstate relations in South-Eastern Europe confirms the conclusion that the aspirations of the Balkan states to maximum expansion of their own territories, regardless of the interests of the neighboring states, the intervention of the coalition and the use of the Macedonian issue as an instrument for the realization of their diplomacy The goals in the Balkans prevented him from resolving democratically in the context of the events of the First World War and in the postwar period at the Paris Peace Conference. Macedonian question remains the cornerstone of international relations of the first half of the twentieth century.

The scientific and practical significance of the study of regional and institutional aspects, their cardinal influences on the systems of international relations is exacerbated by the fact that this problem remains inadequately researched and controversial in the European, in particular, Ukrainian scientific literature.

In the world today, as a result of the development of international humanitarian law, the humanization of war and peace, culture and the democratization of international relations, there are significant institutional, political and diplomatic changes. In this context, historical and diplomatic experience, both in retrospect and in the long run, is of great importance, primarily in preserving the necessary balance between civilization and socioculture, and peaceful and authoritative methods for resolving conflicts, in particular ethnopolitical ones.

Like any scientific methodical and creative work, the monograph is not without certain disadvantages. In particular, I would like to express my remarks and wishes to the author for his subsequent reprints, namely to include in the book, to a greater extent, materials on the political and diplomatic aspects of the settlement of the Macedonian issue in a historical retrospective and to show the peculiarities of the use of diplomatic tools with the use of comparative analysis on the example of the states of other international- political regions, which, undoubtedly, will provide an even deeper content and will introduce an element of comparative (comparative) analysis of peculiarities and national nological achievements of international legal and political diplomatic practices and models of diplomacy.

In general, we received at our disposal a benign, meaningful, well-balanced scientific-theoretical and methodological plan, and published a monograph on a high-level polygraph level. The author of monograph O. Gurinova introduced a large number of unpublished sources from foreign and Ukrainian archives into the scientific circulation.

We recommend our readers this new edition and we hope that this book will interest them, and international students and students of the Diplomatic Academy of Ukraine under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine will help in mastering the initial courses “Composite History, Theory and Practice of Diplomacy”, “World Diplomacy: Theory, History, Practice”, “Diplomacy of foreign states” ,”Foreign regional studies, regional studies and intercultural political and diplomatic communication”, “History of diplomacy, foreign policy and international relations”, “Europistika”, “International political regions: the Balkans” and others.

We would like to hope that this monograph will be a useful find for historians, lawyers, political scientists, future diplomats and contemporary diplomats-practitioners, whom it addresses first and foremost. As well as those who are interested in modern approaches to the study of diplomacy, foreign policy and international relations, the definition of the place of personality in the international legal coordinates, the actual questions of the theory, history and practice of diplomacy in its institutional and global dimensions.

The reviewed work, written at a sufficiently high theoretical and methodological level, will be of interest to scholars, historians, internationalists, professional politicians, diplomats, analysts in the field of external relations, teachers, doctoral students, postgraduates, students, ordinary and extraordinary readers!

Japanese help to UKRAINE within JICA projects

Violetta Udovik


The article reveals main directions and results of Japan’s Official Development Assistance in Ukraine. It analyzes the first visit of the President of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) S. Kitaoka to Ukraine in the context of the expansion of Japan’s foreign policy strategy in the post-Soviet region. Further prospects of Ukraine-Japan cooperation in the area of receiving of Japan’s aid are outlined.

Keywords: Ukraine, Japan, Ukraine-Japan relations, Japan’s Official Development Assistance, Japan International Cooperation Agency, JICA, foreign policy of Japan, international relations.

The leading positions of the Japanese state in the global system of international relations today are not in doubt. Japan, one of the financial centers of the present and an active subject of international relations, is a reliable and important partner of Ukraine. During 25 years of diplomatic relations, Ukraine and Japan have achieved positive results in all areas of bilateral cooperation in the political, economic and cultural spheres. An important indicator of increasing the strategic importance of Ukraine in the foreign policy of Japan was the comprehensive support of the Japanese state of Ukraine in conditions of Russian aggression. It also includes providing financial assistance aimed at the fastest recovery of the Ukrainian state, as well as further development of its political and economic potential.

The relevance of this topic of research is that domestic historiography does not have enough works in which the analysis of Japan’s assistance to Ukraine as a specific form of Ukrainian-Japanese cooperation. The purpose of this article is to reveal the meaning and nature of the assistance to Japan in Ukraine under JICA projects, taking into account the specifics of the Japanese foreign policy.

From January 15 till 17, 2017, the visit of the President of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) S.Kitaoki to Ukraine became the first ever visit of the head of this organization to our country in the history of Ukrainian-Japanese relations. The official program of staying a Japanese high-ranking official included negotiations with President of Ukraine P. Poroshenko, Kyiv Mayor V. Klitschko, Minister of Regional Development, Construction and Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine G. Zubko. President C. Kitakoy also visited Bortnitsky aeration station in Kyiv and the Chernobyl exclusion zone [1; 2; 3]. They discussed the issues of intensification of bilateral cooperation between Ukraine and Japan, in particular through the implementation of JAIKI projects in Ukraine, as well as prospects for further cooperation between the two countries in the areas of infrastructure development, energy efficiency, environmental protection and health. A concrete result of the visit of President S.Kitaoka was the announcement by the Japanese party of a decision to open the JAKI office in Ukraine this year, coinciding with the “Year of Japan in Ukraine” in 2017 [1; 2; 3].

It should be noted that the visit of President JICA S.Kitaoki to Ukraine has become an important step in the intensification of Ukrainian-Japanese relations, which was launched after the approval by the Prime Minister of Japan S. Abe of the “National Security Strategy” in 2013 and the proclamation of “active pacifism “as the main foreign policy strategy of Japan on the international scene.

The Japanese state, adopting a pacifist constitution in 1947, throughout the period of the Cold War, adhered to the “Yoshida Doctrine”, which envisioned the accelerated economic development of Japan under the US nuclear umbrella and low level of its participation in international affairs. However, the rapid changes in the international environment of the late 20th – early 21st century, in particular the Gulf War of 1990-1991, and the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, led Japan to redefine its place in international relations and opened the way to intensifying its foreign policy.

It was in the framework of such foreign policy thinking that Japan supported Ukraine in conditions of Russian aggression and became the only state in Asia that imposed sanctions against the Russian Federation. A practical reflection of this course was the fact that in 2015 the first visit of the Japanese leader – Prime Minister S. Abe to Ukraine – took place, which announced the decision of the Government of Japan to provide Ukraine with assistance worth $ 1.85 billion. USA [4].

Considering JACI’s activities, we would like to point out that this organization is coordinating Japan’s Official Development Assistance (ODA), which was launched in 1954. Originally, ODA was to provide technical assistance and repayment to Asia, and in the 1970’s it became a an important instrument of Japan’s foreign policy. Thanks to the economic strengthening of the yen in the second half of the 1980’s, against the backdrop of a deteriorating US economy, from 1991 to 2000, Japan became the largest donor in the world ($ 14.5 billion in 1995, 10 , $ 6 billion in 1998, $ 15.3 billion in 1999 and $ 13 billion, and $ 1 billion in 2000) [5].

Ukraine has been offering ODA since 1997. The main areas of Japanese assistance to our country are stabilization of the economy and financial system, environmental protection, support in such areas as improving the system of public administration and banking reform, supporting democracy, assisting internally displaced persons and facilitating the reconstruction of the Donbas. The main tasks of such assistance are the promotion of internal reforms in Ukraine, as well as the development of the Ukrainian economy and society [6]. Between 1997 and February 2017, within the framework of the ODA, Ukraine provided about 1 billion 839 million dollars. USA, and the main focus of this assistance was announced in 2015 [7]. The strategic importance of Ukraine to Japan and its interest in establishing a stable relationship with our state are also expressed in the fact that only Uzbekistan received more assistance from Japan than the Ukraine – 3 billion 194 million dollars in the post-Soviet space. USA [8]. The third place was assisted by Kazakhstan, which amounted to 1 billion 156 million dollars. USA [8], in spite of Japan’s traditional emphasis on establishing relations with the countries of Central Asia in view of its interest in the natural resources of the region.

The main forms of cooperation between Ukraine and Japan within the framework of the ODA include grant and technical assistance, as well as intergovernmental soft loans. During this period, Ukraine received $ 93 million in grants from Japan [7]. Its main directions are:

1) modernization of modern medical equipment of children’s hospitals (National Children’s Specialized Hospital “Okhmatdit”, children’s hospitals of Kirovograd, Lugansk, Kharkiv, Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk regions);

2) procurement of industrial and medical equipment for enterprises, as well as for victims of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and reconstruction of the eastern regions of Ukraine;

3) grant assistance for Kusanone human security projects (creation of a crisis center in Slavutych, establishment of a cultural and educational center for street children in Odessa, improvement of the quality of medical care for the victims of the Chernobyl disaster and vulnerable groups in Kyiv, etc.);

4) purchase of equipment for theaters of opera and ballet, musical schools and museums (National Philharmonic of Ukraine, Lviv National Opera and Ballet Theater named after S. Krushelnytska, Donetsk State Academic Theater of Opera and Ballet named after A. Solovyanenko, etc.);

5) emergency grants (provided to Ukraine during floods in 1998 and 2008, as well as for internally displaced people in 2014);

6) assistance through international organizations during 2014-2015 to support the process of democratization of Ukraine and the restoration of the Donbas.

Technical assistance provided by Japan to Ukraine is $ 56 million [7]. An important project in this area is the establishment of the “Ukrainian-Japanese Center”. The relevant agreement was signed in 2005, and the opening of the center came in 2006. The main objective of this organization is to deepen ties between the two countries, and recently, the support of projects under the Fukushima-Chornobyl line has become an important area of its activity. Another area of technical assistance is the exchange of specialists. As of March 2016, 662 internships were organized and the delegation of teams of researchers and specialists (325 people) [7]. Technical assistance also includes JICA pilot studies and feasibility studies. However, the most important financial point of view is the lending assistance from Japan, which is 1.69 billion dollars. USA [7]. The pilot project in this direction was the construction of terminal D at the international airport “Boryspil”, for which Japan was granted a loan in the amount of 190.9 million dollars in 2005. The US (at 1.5% per annum for 30 years with a delay of payment for 10 years). The terminal was put into operation on the eve of the Euro-2012 European Football Championship and, despite some difficulties in implementing the project, received the highest rating from JICA [9].

For today, the Bortnickia Aeration Station in Kyiv is of primary importance for both sides, which was granted a loan of $ 1.1 billion by the Japanese side in 2015. The United States (at 0.1% per annum for 40 years with deferred payment for 10 years). The project-preparatory work is scheduled to be completed in July 2017. In 2018 an international competition for the definition of the general contractor will be held. Construction work on the site in the schedule from November 2018 [2]. According to Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to Ukraine Sh. Sumy, this project is extremely large in terms of financing [2], therefore it is believed that the further cooperation of Japan with Ukraine in the area of providing credit assistance depends on the success of its implementation.

So, what are potential projects going on? First of all, let us note the plans for the construction of a bridge across the river Yuzhny Bug, which will be the continuation of the road Reni – Izmail – Odessa – Nikolaev – Melitopol – Novoazovsk [2]. Discussion of this project was started back in the 2000s and noted by recent visits of JICA’s representatives to Mykolaiv. It is also known about the discussion of cooperation in the field of recycling of domestic waste and construction of waste incineration plants. In this context, the Ukrainian side stressed that the reconstruction of the “Energy” incinerator plant is important for Kyiv [1]. At present, the problem of rubbish is also acute in Lviv. Another potential area of Ukrainian-Japanese cooperation within the framework of the ODA projects may be the sphere of health protection. Significance of Japanese assistance to our state is no doubt. But what is the significance of the visit of President JICA and the support of Ukraine to Japan? As noted earlier, the expansion of the horizons of Japanese diplomacy and the intensification of relations between Japan and Ukraine are associated with a reload of its foreign policy during the second government of S. Abe and the adoption of the concept of “active pacifism” as the main foreign policy strategy of Japan. It is also important that before the visit of President JICA, in addition to Ukraine, visits to Armenia and Georgia [6] were indicated, indicating a general strengthening of the post-Soviet vector in the foreign policy of Japan. It becomes of particular relevance in the face of the Japanese government’s determination to resolve conflicting issues in relations with Russia.

Attention is drawn to the expansion of JICA’s infrastructure in the region – the opening of a regional office in Georgia in conjunction with the planned establishment of a representative office of this organization in Ukraine (against the background of existing offices in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) will enhance Japan’s understanding of political and economic processes in the post-soviet area. This could be an additional trump card in Tokyo’s relations with Moscow and will have a positive impact on Ukrainian-Japanese relations. In the economic plan, the expansion of JICA’s activities opens the way for further penetration of Japanese private capital into the countries of the region, which is in line with the strategic interests of both sides.

Consequently, Japan actively supports our state, and the volume of Japanese ODA has increased from 370 million dollars in 2014 to 1 billion 839 million dollars in 2017 [7; 10]. Such unprecedented assistance from Japan confirms the increase of Ukraine’s strategic importance in its foreign policy and emphasizes the interest of the Japanese side in the fastest restoration of the Ukrainian state and the consolidation of democracy in the territory of the former Soviet Union. We believe that the Ukrainian-Japanese relations have moved to a new level of cooperation and should further develop on the principle of “ascending line”. In the long run, both countries are interested in developing relationships on the basis of common universal values and mutual understanding, which provides a solid foundation for further development of bilateral cooperation, including within the framework of the Japanese ODA.


1. President of the Japan International Cooperation Agency arrived in Ukraine. – https://inform-ua.info/politics/v-ukraynu-pryekhal-prezydent-yaponskoho-ahentstva-mezhdunarodnoho-sotrudnychestva.

2. By the end of the year, the office of the Japanese agency JICA will open in Ukraine. – Gennady Zubko. – http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/publish/article?art_id=250077326

3. Experts from Ukraine and Japan discussed the prospects of scientific and technical cooperation in the exclusion zone. – dazv.gov.ua/novini-ta-media/vsi-novyny/eksperti-ukrajini-ta-yaponiji-obgovorili-perspektivi-naukovo-tekhnichnoji-spivpratsi-u-zoni-vidchuzhennya.html.

4. 日・ウクライナ首脳会談. – www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/erp/c_see/ua/page4_001922.html.

5. Kawai M. Japan’s Official Development Assistance: recent issues and future directions . – https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/1813-9450-2722.

6. 北岡理事長がJICA理事長として初めてジョージア、アルメニア、ウクライナを訪問:政府要人との会談や事業現場の視察を通じ、日本の協力の重要性を再確認. – https://www.jica.go.jp/press/2017/20170621_01.html.

7. Japan assistance to Ukraine. – http://www.ua.emb-japan.go.jp/jpn/bi_ua/oda/170216_summary_en.pdf.

8. 国別データ集. – URL: www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/oda/files/000247508.pdf.

9. ウクライナ ボリスポリ空港拡張事業. – https://www2.jica.go.jp/ja/evaluation/pdf/2014_UKR-P1_4_f.pdf.

10. ウクライナ. – www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/oda/files/000142328.pdf.

Залишити відповідь

Ваша e-mail адреса не оприлюднюватиметься. Обов’язкові поля позначені *