Search

The article examines the recently published documents on the priorities of the U.S. in the Arctic region. At the end of 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy published the document titled “Arctic Strategy”, and the White House released “The New National Strategy for the Arctic Region”. The latter strategic document presents the U.S. policy for the development of the Arctic over the next ten years. It addresses a number of issues, in particular rising geopolitical tension and the climate crisis, which significant effect the stable development of the Arctic re-gion. In the time of global rivalry between Russia and the West, the United States has stepped up its policy in the Arctic. The creation of these documents confirms the willingness of the United States to strengthen own presence in the region. The key directions of the U.S. policy in the Arctic, as well as areas of greatest interest to the USA are clearly defined in the strategic documents. The development of naval forces, construction of new ships, and further study of the climatic features of the Arctic region are addressed. Moreover, the documents express the U.S. firm intention to continue development of energy projects in the Arctic, and deepen cooperation with allies and partners by using multilateral mechanisms.

The change in the balance of power in Ukraine in February 2014 not only changed Ukraine’s foreign policy course, but also marked the beginning of a new Western policy toward Kiev. Political support for the Ukrainian authorities was expanded. Ukraine’s involvement in the sphere of Western interests intensified. Western countries used multilateral mechanisms to form new interstate relations with Ukraine. The Ukrainian army was actively modernized. The West supplied Western equipment. The U.S. and the EU have been closely following the conflict in Donbass. While publicly supporting a peaceful solution to the conflict, the West did not take real steps to resolve it. Advocating a violent solution to the conflict, nationalist forces became actively involved in the country’s domestic politics. Kiev was encouraged to take steps to curtail trade and economic cooperation with Russia and to sever ties between businesses. The IMF was actively pursuing programs and consistently demanding reforms in the social and economic spheres. In the political sphere, the West supported Ukraine’s policy, which led to the aggravation of political relations between the countries. After Vladimir Zelensky came to power in 2019, the West intensified its support for Kiev. Western authorities bet on a forceful solution to the conflict and provoked conflict between Ukraine and Russia. In February 2022, anticipating Ukraine’s actions, Russia launched a special military operation. It called into question the further development of Ukraine and, at the same time, led to an adjustment of Western policy. The U.S. and EU stepped up military support for Kiev and significantly expanded financial aid. This policy of the West has created certain risks for Russia, which has entered the phase of acute geopolitical confrontation with the U.S. and the EU.

Over the past decades, the European gas market has attracted the attention of many extra-regional actors. The geopolitical rivalry for the European gas market intensified after an increase in shale gas production in the United States, which was interested in expanding its supply to Europe. The development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) sector intensified the struggle for the European gas market. The U.S., Qatar and Algeria, began to take steps to squeeze Russian gas out of Europe. This exacerbated the competition for the gas market in Europe, where LNG has already occupied a certain part. Moreover, in recent years, the U.S. and Qatar have developed ambitious plans aimed at increasing LNG production, expecting in the future to radically change the balance of power on the European market. To this end, the U.S. has launched a campaign against the Russian supplies. In addition, sanctions were imposed on the Nord Stream–2 gas pipeline, which prevented the project from starting operations. Being involved in the geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the United States, the EU countries supported the U.S. course, and proclaimed the policy of reducing dependence on Russian gas. In the long term, they want to give it up completely. This goal was prioritised in the EU gas policy. However, in 2021–2022 this strategy rapidly increased prices on the gas market in Europe, which negatively impacted European economies. Despite the economic losses, the EU did not abandon its course of refusing supplies of hydrocarbon resources from Russia.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on international relations and world politics. The global and national economies, social sphere and culture were influenced by the pandemic. The global pandemic impact has led to a reassessment of the future development of the modern world.Every country in the world has proposed its own way to address the challenges that occurred with the start of the pandemic and its consequences. At the first stage, the centrepiece of proposed measures was mainly focused on maintaining economic sustainability and providing social support. The emphasis was placed on fostering individual sectors of the economy, which has demonstrated its effectiveness. However, many states were balancing social stability and economic growth, which was hit by the imposed lockdowns. The steps taken have yielded shortterm positives in different countries. At the same time, they demonstrated the limited resources and low efficiency of measures to overcome the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is significant that many countries achieved socio-political stability by increasing the debt burden. In the first phase of the pandemic, such approach was assessed as optimal. In general, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the vulnerability and weakness of the modern states to combat new challenges. First of all, this concerned economic policy, social issues and the labor market.Many states have drawn positives from the crisis by adjusting political approaches and economic decisions. The current experience has made it possible to transform social policy, support employment, and adjust approaches to labor market regulation. However, the task, targeted at finding optimal solutions from the government, respecting the interests of business, maintaining social stability and the possibilities of the budgetary sphere, is still high on the agenda.The lack of effective mechanisms for multilateral cooperation among world states in tackling global challenges, which include the COVID-19 pandemic, stimulated many countries to seek solutions aimed at protecting their own interests. All countries were forced to implement their foreign policy, build bilateral and multilateral relations in fundamentally new conditions. First of all, internal security and political stability were on the agenda.The global pandemic raised the issue of the prospects for the development of international relations and world politics. Amid relations between states, a tendency to searching for new partners capable of providing support in a difficult economic situation is on its way. This opened up new opportunities for them, making for strengthening their positions. On the other hand, the world’s leading countries are still numbed by their past approaches to shaping relations within the framework of the existing system of international relations. The sanctions policy and the confrontational approach are still actively implemented by Western countries in the policies towards Russia and China. This strengthens confrontational relations between countries and maintains dividing lines in world politics.The COVID-19 pandemic has given new impetus to debates on how to tackle global challenges. The climate agenda, problems of water resources, migration have previously been in the sharp focus of many states. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a revision of the role of states in settling global problems, having the effectiveness of international institutions high on the agenda.The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected the development of the global economy, which faced various challenges. Developing economies were most stricken by the pandemic. In turn, the industrialized states were able to channel significant aid, which allowed them to smooth the negative impact of the pandemic. However, the global economic recovery has been uneven as a cosequence of political decisions, states’ economic capacities in certain regions.

A key factor that influenced regional security in the South Caucasus was the hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the fall of 2020. Those events have changed the balance of power in the region. The efforts of Azerbaijan, which relied on political and military support from Turkey, led to Baku’s control over part of the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. The hostilities of the fall of 2020 aggravated the internal political situation in Armenia. Turkey strengthened its position in the region. In addition to solving geopolitical problems and promoting its economic interests in the countries of the South Caucasus, Ankara’s policy was aimed at expanding its presence in the energy sector, including through increased influence on Azerbaijan. The implementation of the “Southern Gas Corridor” project has made Turkey a key “player” in the South Caucasus in the energy sphere. Ankara has gained an opportunity to influence gas supplies to Europe. It also has access to Azerbaijan’s gas streams. In the long run, Turkey hopes to reach hydrocarbon resources on the eastern coast of the Caspian Sea, particularly Turkmen gas. With information and political support from the United States, Turkey has promoted the idea of the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline. Thus, Turkey’s policy promoted the development of the East-West Energy Corridor. The Turkish-Azerbaijani-Georgian trilateral format contributed to this. It allowed Ankara to greatly expand its presence in the South Caucasus and to impact the political and economic development of Azerbaijan and Georgia. Overall, however, Ankara’s policy has had a negative impact on regional security and has intensified the competition for influence in the South Caucasus among extra-regional actors.

The article relates to the geopolitical rivalry in the Arctic unwound in the recent years between the United States and Russia. Both countries claim leading positions here considering the Arctic as a region where the commercial production of hydrocarbon resources is eventually possible. Climate change breaks new ground for the shipping development in the Arctic. It stands to reason that Russia and the United States have redoubled their attention to the Arctic merchant shipping development and are enhancing naval vessels commissioning. Russia and the United States have made significant progress in this regard. However, changes in world politics, growth of contradictions in the world economy have led to stepping up policy of Russia and the United States in the Arctic. To defend their interests, Russia and the United States adopted a series of documents indicating the Arctic policy avenues. The article examines both Russia and the United States approaches to the policy implementation in the Arctic, as well as the future challenges facing the countries. The author finds that the geopolitical rivalry between the leading Arctic states for the Arctic will continue. Being unable to establish commercial production in the Arctic, Russia and the United States will implement the increased focus on the military sphere. The creation of the necessary military infrastructure, the construction of new vessels will become a key objective for both states. In addition, Russia and the United States will expand support for Arctic shipbuilding, which is seen as the main instrument for promoting their economic interests.

The local elections results in Ukraine, taken place in October 2020, recorded changes in the main political forces alignment. The pro-presidential «Servant of the People» party has lost the electorate support. This further weakened the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky standings. At the same time, during the local elections, the popular classes supported the pro-Eu-ropean party of the former President Petro Poroshenko. His political party “European Solidarity” managed to gain a significant number of votes in regional and city councils in almost all Ukraine territorial entities. The «Opposition Platform — For Life» party, oriented towards the South-East Ukrainian electorate, received a high level of support. A distinctive feature of the local elections was the voters’ interest decline in radical nationalist parties. The results of local elections reflected changes in the voters mood. The key factor was the economic problems which the Ukrainian authorities faced. As a result, the President of Ukraine and his political party have lost support among the population, which in the future will increase the rivalry between the official Kiev and regional authorities.

In recent years, the countries of the Caspian region have sought to expand regional cooperation in energy and transport spheres. For a long time, these areas of cooperation were not being developed, which negatively affected the regional economy. The revision of the existing approaches of regional countries to cooperation is dictated by the growth of problems of economic development of each country. Non-regional states have a continuing interest in the Caspian region. First of all, they are interested in projects aimed at diversifying the supply of hydrocarbon resources from the region to foreign markets. In turn, the construction of new export pipelines is considered by the countries of the Caspian region as a way of strengthening their geopolitical positions and realising socio-economic projects. New pipelines not only can create additional opportunities for the delivery of oil and gas from the region to foreign markets, but also can radically change the balance of power. This explains the increased attention to the issues of production and export of hydrocarbon resources.At the same time, the revision of the energy policy of the regional countries, which began in the 1990s, did not reduce their dependence on non-regional states that act as final consumers or transit countries for oil and gas. The construction of new pipelines broke Russia’s monopoly over the export of hydrocarbon resources from the regional countries to foreign markets. However, the decline of Russian influence was compensated by Iran and China, which got the opportunity to influence the regional countries through pricing mechanisms and volumes of purchased hydrocarbon raw materials. For this reason, the regional countries are in favor of a further increase in the number of new pipelines, believing that their construction will expand opportunities for oil and gas exports and will reduce dependence on neighboring states.

This chapter considers the approaches and possibilities of exploration and use of shale gas in the countries of the former USSR. Many of them became interested in the results of the US “shale revolution” which opened the new stage in gas production. Some post-Soviet countries are eager by using shale gas to reduce their dependence on external deliveries, thus, attaining energy independence.The data on shale gas reserves in the post-Soviet countries are taken together; the preliminary results of energy policy in these countries concerning development of the shale gas deposits are presented; the first results of oil and gas company activities are analyzed.Of all post-Soviet countries, Ukraine was most active in this respect having declared about possessing the greatest shale gas reserves. Ukraine invited foreign oil and gas companies which showed interest in the shale deposits. But the shale gas production in Ukraine acquired political dimensions impeding the objective assessment of startup conditions and likely consequences of shale gas extraction for the people and natural environment. Shale gas was in the focus of attention of the authorities in Kazakhstan and Moldavia which considered this hydrocarbon resource as the significant factor for diversification of hydrocarbon supply and ensuring independence of the Russian gas. “Shale revolution” was not neglected in Russia which had to take into account the shale gas factor in the world energy balance adjusting its policy respectively. USA made attempt to push its shale contracts in Russia, thus, ensuring access to the Russian gas market. On the one hand, Russia remained indifferent to the shale boom and went on implementation of its pipeline projects, but, on the other hand, it does not waive off absolutely the potential of this hydrocarbon resource.In general, the post-Soviet countries regardless of the lack of a legislative base, technologies and unresolved environmental issues have shown certain interest in shale gas production.

The changeover of the ruling of the modern Ukrainian territory between East and West had lasted for around 800 years beginning from the Mongol-Tatar invasion. It was that time when Batu Khan defeated Ancient Rus that the present territory of Ukraine came under complete and absolute ruling of the Tatar East. In the 16th century as a part of Lithuania Ukraine was included into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and then passed under the rule of the Polish magnates, under the yoke of the Western Polish civilization. In 1569 the Union of Lublin was signed that formalized the accession of the Ukrainian territory to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the period from the 10th to the 19th centuries there was no such state as Ukraine on the world political map. In the 10th century some part of the territory of present Ukraine was taken by Kievan Rus, in the 13th century — by Golden Horde, in the 14th-15th centuries — by Lithuania, Golden Horde and Russia. In the next centuries the territory of Ukraine was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, Poland and Russia. And only in 1918 the state of Ukraine appeared on the political map.Single Soviet Ukraine created by Bolsheviks did not present any internal cultural and language unity as it was always shared by different empires being the hostile and irreconcilable centers of force in Europe — the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russian Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire.In 1917-1920 about dozens of different republics were established in the territory of Ukraine. They were isolated within the borders of their formations. Accordingly, it may be said that in 1917-1920 Ukraine presented a mosaic of different formations which were often formed due to ambitions of some scoundrels and political adventurers striving to get to power and to become the leader of a state. But only the tough policy of Bolsheviks aimed to prevent the disintegration process permitted Ukraine to preserve its territory. After its election the Supreme Council started preparation of the Draft Declaration of Ukraine State Sovereignty simultaneously with the Draft Law on Ukraine State Sovereignty. Both drafts were considered in May 1990. After their discussion it was decided to develop the Draft Declaration of State Sovereignty.On July 16, 1990 the Ukrainian Parliament after long discussions adopted the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine by majority voting. This declaration which did not change and substitute the Constitution of Ukrainian SSR became a very important document for establishment of the Ukrainian statehood having laid the basis for the future Constitution of Ukraine.The concept of the new Constitution of Ukraine envisaged the establishment of the presidential republic. As a result, in June 1991 the laws «On Establishment of the Office of President of Ukrainian SSR with Making Alterations and Additions in the Constitution», «On President of Ukrainian SSR” and “On Election of President of Ukrainian SSR». The office of president was established to strengthen the vertical of executive power and to make it in the future independent of executive power of union bodies. The law assigned broad authorities to the president. Thus, the president acquired the right to cancel the decisions of the USSR bodies of executive power in the territory of Ukrainian SSR if they contradicted its constitution.By mid-1991 the legislative base was created in Ukraine which, in fact, made it an independent state as the laws adopted in 1990 and in the first half of 1991 brought out Ukraine from subordination to the USSR powers. The single economic, political and military space of the USSR practically ceased to exist. By this time Ukraine subordinated only nominally to union authorities. On August 24 the Extraordinary Meeting of Supreme Rada passed the Act on Declaration of Independence of Ukraine. That time it was also decided to conduct on December 01 the republican referendum to confirm the Act of Independence. This was done with a view to demonstrate to the union authorities that the Ukrainian people were endeavoring to become independent, thus, making legitimate the Act of Independence. After becoming independent in 1991 Ukraine entered the new stage of its development. The regional system of Ukraine revealed two clear poles — Donbass and Galichina which determined the country’s development for decades ahead.

The Caspian Sea is the intercontinental, international, transboundary enclosed inland water body. It receives flows of such large rivers as Volga, Ural, Terek, Kura, and Sefidrud. The Caspian is highly dynamic. In view of its unique behavior, precisely the water level fluctuations, the research of not only these processes and their forecast, but careful study of the design and engineering solutions were required here because the results of such researches determine the social and economic development of the coastal areas.The Caspian became the focus of attention usually at the times when the period of its level drop changed over for its rise (or vice versa). It is in these periods that the “critical mass” of the gradually accumulating environmental, social and economic consequences of any kind should find “outlet”. In other words, the need “to save the Caspian” and “to be saved from the Caspian” appeared. In the past decades, till 1930, the economic activities in the Caspian region, such as oil production, shipping, fishery, lifestyle of the local population got adapted to the existing level of the Caspian Sea. The first level drop in the Caspian in the 1930s was the first alarming and even shocking bell that stirred anxiety for its future. At the same time, the change of the Caspian level has incurred considerable damage.This situation forced the riparian states to develop various projects aimed to take into consideration the Caspian level fluctuations and, simultaneously, to stabilize its level. Many suggested solutions were of a global scale and were not realizable. Moreover, the developers of practically all projects did not understand properly the significance of these processes, thus, inadequate assessment of their consequences. And, finally, many proposals concerning development of the riparian territories with regard to the Caspian level fluctuations could lead to serious environmental disturbances that would entail negative consequences in the following decades.