Geopolitical View of Ukraine: History of Development and Specifics of its Current Transformation

Any scientific research in the field of geopolitics requires deep theoretical knowledge; hence, theoretical books on geopolitics were used for making scientific research for this article. Works of such authors as Kolosov and Mironenko (2005), Yatsenko et al. (2007) deserve special attention, as they describe all possible approaches to the interpretation of geopolitics as a science, study the historical stages of its formation, as well as analyse the importance of categories used in it. Another author Gyorgy (2013), in his work, studies the influence of the German school of geopolitics on the evolution of this science around the world.

Political science explanatory dictionary (Politolohichnyy 2020) and a dictionary-reference book on geopolitics (Dergachov 2009) helped to distinguish two categories such as geopolitical view and geopolitical interest. The article also explains why the geopolitical view evolved into geopolitical interest after Ukraine achieved independence.

To substantiate the methods and explain how they were used in the article, the works of such scientists as Pashchenko (2010) and Topchiyev (2005) were studied.

As Ukraine is a relatively young state and the historical process of formation of its geopolitical view was long and difficult, there was a need to use such scientific works that would help to analyse comprehensively the history of Ukrainian statehood and history of formation of its political and geopolitical ideology. In order to fulfil this task, the works of such authors as Dnistryanskyj (2007, 2010, 2011), Dergachov (1996), Kaminsky (2005), Kukhta (1994), Shabliy (1993), Kapustyan (2016), Krushinsky and Levenets (1993), Krypyakevych (1995) as well as the works of those classics of geopolitics in Ukraine that directly influenced its formation in the 20th c., including Dziuba (1990), Kubiyovych (1943) and Lypa (1942) were studied and used for this scientific research.

It should be noted that despite the fact that the topic of the formation of Ukraine's geopolitical view and its evolution is complex and important, insufficient attention is paid to its study. Only a small number of scientists, including such as Dnistryanskyj (2000, 2008), Gvozdj (2020), Madison and Shakhov (2003), Chernyk, (2017) and Galjchynskyj (2002) work on comprehensive study of the geopolitics of Ukraine. Some aspects of Ukrainian geopolitics, features of its implementation and problematic issues are studied among domestic authors such as Bahrov (2002), Chernyk (2017), Doroshko and Shpakova (2011), Martsikhiv and Shepelyak (2020), Panchenko (2019), Pyrozhkov (2000), Shulga (2009), Vasylenko (2000), Zinko (2012), Zinyak (2014) and others.

Issues related to the geopolitics applied and state development strategies are partially covered in the periodicals, analysed on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (Minsterrstvo 2021), the publications of independent information and analytical centres such as the Razumkov Center (Ukrayins’kyy 2021), studied in publications of Victor Gvozd's geopolitical diary (Heopolitychnyy 2021), the scientific bulletin Geopolitics of Ukraine: History and modernity (Heopolityka 2021), the scientific journal National Security and Defense (Zhurnal 2021) and others.

Ukraine's place in the geopolitics of other countries and their orientation towards it can be found in the works of such foreign authors as Brzezinski (2000, 2006), Dergachov (2009, 2011), Larrabee (2010), Suremain and Verluise (2014), Terranova (2020) and Störk (2015), but their research is not sufficiently relevant to the analysis of Ukraine's geopolitics, mostly covering issues of Ukraine's place in the geopolitics of the countries they represent and the geopolitical orientation of these countries towards Ukraine.

Hence, the research on the history of the formation of Ukraine's geopolitical view and current transformation is relevant and topical as it can help to explain main features and problems of the state's modern geopolitics, and can be useful and interesting for researchers from abroad.

The study of the historical periods of the formation of Ukraine's geopolitical view and current transformation demands using exact and true methods, among which literary, historical, chronological, diachronic (periodisation method), system approach, event and content analysis, and SWOT analysis were applied in this article. Moreover, the definitions and descriptions, which were taken from the works of such authors as Panchenko (2019) and Topchiyev (2005) were used.

First of all, the literary method was employed for the implementation of the scientific research and it means ‘the study of various sources of information related to the research problem’. Thanks to the analysis of primary, secondary and tertiary sources of information, it was possible to perform a thorough scientific study on the peculiarities of the formation and modern transformation of the geopolitical view of Ukraine.

In the article, a historical method was also used, which allowed conducting a retrospective analysis and establishing causal links related to the peculiarities of the formation and evolution of the geopolitical view of Ukraine. The historical method is closely related to the chronological method, the use of which made it possible to study the evolution of the main geopolitical ideas, to consider the work of various authors on this issue and to present them in a chronological order. Further, the diachronic method was applied to highlight the historical stages of the formation of the geopolitical view of Ukraine and substantiate their expediency.

In the process of writing the article, a systematic approach was also used, which involved the study of the evolution and implementation of the geopolitical view of the state as a holistic, systemic phenomenon. The application of this method helped not only to study the peculiarities of the formation of the geopolitical view of Ukraine at different historical stages, but also to analyse the peculiarities of its transformation at the present stage, taking into account the main interrelated preconditions—historical, political, legal, socio-economic and cultural.

Content and event analyses were also used for the scientific research in the article. Content analysis is based on the study of official information materials. Event analysis is a method of public information study, which allows investigating and systematising actions in international relations. The use of these methods made it possible to comprehensively study all possible factors of political, historical, cultural and economic nature that have a direct impact on the formation of Ukraine's geopolitical view and the implementation of its modern geopolitical interests.

Furthermore, the forecast method was employed as it helps to predict future situations and processes by the accumulation of a set of methods and techniques of research. Hence, by using this method, it became possible to anticipate possible threats and prospects in the pursuit of geopolitical interests of the state and to implement SWOT analysis of Ukraine's geopolitical location.

SWOT analysis, used in the article, deserves very special attention, as it is the basic algorithm for studying the situation based on the selection of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the studied object and establishing links between them, the study of which allows designing a strategy for a behaviour pattern in a given situation. The article includes SWOT analysis of the geopolitical location of Ukraine, and is represented in a matrix of its strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats, the analysis of which made it possible to identify the main geopolitical interests of Ukraine at the present stage, as most of the current state's geopolitical interests derive from specific features of Ukraine's geopolitical location. The matrix was studied on the basis of such groups as ‘strengths-opportunities’, the study of which showed how to use most effectively the advantages of the geopolitical location of the state in pursuing its geopolitical interests, ‘weaknesses-opportunities’ – how to use opportunities to eliminate shortcomings, ‘strengths-problems’ – how the advantages of a geopolitical location can protect from external factors, ‘weaknesses-problems’ – what should be done to reduce existing problems or prevent possible as a result of negative influences of the state's geopolitical location. Thus, based on the geopolitical location of Ukraine SWOT analysis, it became possible to identify the main geopolitical interests of the state at the present stage.

Consequently, the use of all the scientific methods described above allowed a comprehensive analysis of the historical stages of the formation of the geopolitical view of Ukraine and features of its transformation at the present stage and made it possible to fulfil all the tasks which appeared during the implementation of this scientific research.

The geopolitical view of Ukraine has undergone a very long development process. The reason for this was a rather long absence of Ukrainian statehood, so various approaches to the vision of what Ukraine should be as an independent state, as well as which lands this state must include. Moreover, Ukraine has long been divided among different states, and from the middle of the 20th c. all its ethnic lands were under the control of the Soviet Union, where geopolitics was absolutely forbidden. Hence, until Ukraine got independence in 1991, we can only talk about the formation and development of its geopolitical view, which have formed the basis of the state's geopolitical interests since it got independence.

In general, the history of the formation of the geopolitical view of Ukraine can be divided into the following three key stages.

The characteristic features and main achievements of Historical Stage 1 of Ukraine's geopolitical view formation are represented in Table 1.

Historical Stage 1 in the formation of Ukraine's geopolitical view dates back to the 9th c., when the Ukrainian lands became the centre of Kievan Rus—one of the largest and most powerful states of the Middle Ages, which in 1240 was ruined and became dependent on the Mongol Empire. After that time, the political, economic and cultural centre of the Ukrainian lands moved to the Galicia-Volyn state (the territory of modern Western and South-Western Ukraine), which in the late 14th c. was divided between the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Kapustyan 2016).

During this period the first sources of territorial and political information about Ukrainian lands appeared, including the chronicles of Kievan Rus and the Galicia-Volyn state, which described the territory of Kievan Rus, division into tribes, the nature of dynastic relations and Rus's place in the system of foreign relations of the time. With the loss of Rus (ancient Ukrainian) statehood during the 13th c. and 14th c., the need to restore it and fight for the identity of Ukrainian lands existed only in church-educational circles.

At the end of the 14th c., southern Ukrainian lands became under the control of the Crimean Khanate; Transcarpathia – Hungary; northern, central and partly western lands – Lithuania and south-western territories belonged to Poland, which in the 14th c. united with Lithuania, creating the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

In the 15th c. in the territory of the so-called ‘wild steppes’ of the South, there appeared a group of soldiers who called themselves ‘Cossacks’ and they formed a separate social class, which managed in 1648–1657 to raise an uprising led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky (1596–1657) and create a self-governing Ukrainian state in modern central Ukraine – ‘Zaporizhzhya Sich’ (Krypyakevych 1995).

The period of the Cossacks and their active struggle resulted not only in the formation of a new Ukrainian state but also brought a new geopolitical worldview. The new geopolitical thinking also affected the activities of hetman governments in the international arena, for example, in attempts to create broad interstate coalitions, as well as to sign important political treaties of that time. Moreover, cartographic materials and descriptions of the French engineer Boplan (1600–1673) confirmed the perception of Cossack Ukraine as a separate territorial and political unit in the international arena.

No less important was the constitution of Hetman Pylyp Orlyk (1672–1742), adopted in 1710, which formed the basic democratic principles of the political organisation of independent Cossack Ukraine, despite the fact that in political and geographical terms this document had a number of shortcomings, for example, it limited the territory of the Cossack state to the temporarily determined variant by the Polish king during the national liberation war led by Khmelnytsky.

After the destruction of Cossack autonomy in the late 18th c., all Ukrainian ethnic lands became divided between the Russian Empire and Austria-Hungary. The idea of Ukrainian statehood was preserved for a long time on the territory of previous Hetmanate, belonging from those times to the Russian Empire. Thus, in the late 1845 and the early 1846, the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood emerged in the statute, which, under the influence of Slavophilic ideas, defined its political ideal—the Slavic federation with Ukraine as one of the leading republics (Kukhta 1994).

At the same time, the Ukrainian geopolitical view developed in the western lands of Ukraine, which from the end of the 18th c. became part of the Austrian Empire, and from 1867—the Austro-Hungarian Empire. An important political and geographical significance here was the proclamation of the unity of Ukrainians (Rus people) by the ‘Rus's Trinity’ in the west and east and their separateness from Poles and Russians. One of its members, Holovatsky, in 1846 announced the first political demand—autonomy for the Ukrainian lands in Galicia. Also, the Rus-Ukrainian radical party of social-democratic type, formed in 1890, at its first congress (1895) announced the idea of an independent Ukraine, substantiated from socialist positions and described in the work of Bachynsky ‘Ukraine Irredenta’ (1895) (Dergachov 1996).

At this time, on the territory of the Ukrainian lands that were part of the Russian Empire, the idea of an autonomous Ukraine, as part of a federal Russia was concretised, according to Drahomanov (1841–1895), an author who was a public figure. He also proposed to improve the administrative division of the Russian Empire, taking into account ethnic characteristics, substantiated the need for Ukrainians to explore the Black Sea region and proved the necessity to strengthen the Ukrainian geopolitical position in the region and was the first to pay much attention to the importance of geopolitical location and relations with the neighbours.

In 1900, Mikhnovsky (1873–1924) in his work ‘Independent Ukraine’ paid much attention to geopolitical relations, especially to the intensification of political movements of enslaved peoples, and as a consequence—to the formation of the state independence of Ukraine throughout the ethnic territory ‘from the Carpathians to the Caucasus’.

What positively affected the formation of the Ukrainian geopolitical consciousness of those times was the publication of a large number of scientific works on geography and identity of the Ukrainian people divided between the two states. They included the first map of the settlement of Ukrainians by Velychko (1986), the ethnic map of Subcarpathian Russia by Tomashivsky (1910), works of historians Antonovych, Hrushevsky, Bagaliy, Korduba, works of ethnographers Chubynsky, Sumtsov, Hnatiuk, Vovk and conclusions of linguists Potebny, Mykhalchuk, Zhitetsky and others (Dnistryanskyj 2007).

The beginning of the 20th c. saw Historical Stage 2 of Ukraine's geopolitical view formation (Table 2), the main features of which are the strengthening of national political movements, appearance of a new geostrategic thinking about the future of Ukraine, research of possible prospects of Ukrainian statehood and theoretical substantiation of geopolitical ideas and views.

After the collapse of the Russian empire in 1917, the prominent historian Hrushevsky (1866–1934) had a decisive influence on the formation of the geopolitical consciousness of the Ukrainian people in sub-Russian Ukraine. The author paid much attention to the history of Ukraine, which, in his opinion, determined the identity of Ukrainians and their special way of life. However, he saw the future of Ukraine as an autonomous component of the Russian Federation, whose territory was to include provinces with a predominant Ukrainian population (Krushinsky, Levenets 1993). In January 1917, after the capture of Kyiv by the Bolsheviks, Hrushevsky began to defend the idea of the full state independence of Ukraine, however, in his works he didn’t want the Ukrainian people to dominate, because it demoralised and couldn’t be combined with democracy. Thus, the author opposed the idea of Ukrainian imperialism in every possible way (Dnistryanskyj 2010).

The works of the Ukrainian geographer Rudnytsky (1877–1937), who paid considerable attention to the study of the world geopolitical system and the place of Ukraine in it (Shabliy 1993), were the culmination of the achievements of the 20th-century geopolitical ideas. In 1916, in Vienna, Rudnytsky published the work ‘Ukraine from the political-geographical view’ in German, in which he proved the necessity and inevitability of Ukraine's independence, taking into account all historical and ethno-political factors. Rudnytsky substantiated the fact of the temporality of multinational empires and used this argument to explain necessity of an independent Ukraine formation within its ethnic borders, moreover for the security and stability of Central and Eastern Europe. In addition, the author substantiated the idea of the Baltic-Pontic Federation, as opposed to Russian expansion and justified the inadmissibility of Ukraine's accession to the Russian Federation, which could only strengthen its expansionist ambitions and provoke Russia's annexation of Central Europe.

After the defeat of the national revolution of Ukraine in 1921, for the next two decades the Ukrainian ethnic lands were divided between four states: the western and south-western territories of the state became part of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania; all other lands became part of the Soviet Union, where the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was established (Istorychna 2021). In the Ukrainian territory under the Soviet Union, the influence of national communists started to grow and spread over in the subsequent years. National communists supported Bolshevism, but tried to pursue a policy of ‘Ukrainisation’. Their bright representative Mykola Skrypnyk (1872–1933) tried to support ethnic Ukrainians outside the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and even managed to justify revision of its borders with the subsequent inclusion of the neighbouring ethnic Ukrainian territories.

In later years, Ukrainian lands under the Soviet Union faced anti-Ukrainian ethnocultural and socio-economic policies, which were more criminal in nature (organisation of the famine, mass repressions, deportations). Despite the suppression of all possible manifestations of Ukrainian independent political thought and activity, representatives of the ‘old Ukrainian intelligentsia’ continued to be active, for example Synyavsky (1866–1951), who carefully studied geopolitical processes in Europe, as well as economic interests of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in the Middle East. What was also interesting were the views of the famous writer and publicist Mykola Khvylovy (1893–1933), who substantiated the need to reorient Ukrainian literature to Europe and overcome psychological dependence on Russian culture. The works of Bochkovsky (1884–1939) were also important; the author laid the foundations for the doctrine of the nation (nationalism) and developed the theoretical foundations of ethnopolitics as a science that studied the specifics of the relationship between nation and state at all levels of its manifestation (Dnistryanskyj 2011).

In the interwar period, Lypynsky (1882–1931) actively worked on the formation of a sociological theory in which the nation was understood as a unity of citizenship and was characterised by ‘territorial patriotism’. The author actively studied the issues of internal geocultural scission between ethnic Ukrainians who were divided between several states and would have to be harmoniously united based on culture and other issues.

During this period, new ideas of possible geopolitical alliances with the inclusion of Ukraine appeared. For example, the historian Stepan Tomashivsky (1864–1938) and politician Serhiy Shelukhin (1864–1938) developed the idea of the formation of the Adriatic Union, which had to include Ukraine, Czechoslovakia and the Balkan Slavic countries based on their mental and historical commonality. The views of Lypa (1900–1944), who proposed the creation of the Black Sea union, are also very interesting (Lypa 1942). Having great potential, the Black Sea basin created integrity between the countries that belonged to it. In addition, Lypa also foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union and independence of its constituent republics.

The works of the Ukrainian demographer and ethnogeographer Volodymyr Kubiyovych (1900–1985) were also very interesting. He edited and published books on the geography of non-state Ukraine and his works drew attention to the Ukrainian question of foreign scholars and politicians. As a result, Ukrainian ethnic lands began to be considered as having all potential rights to unite into a single Ukrainian state. Also, the author supported the question of Carpathian Ukraine independence (Kubiyovych 1943).

In 1944, as a result of events at the time, on the territories of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialistic Republic, the Ukrainian main liberation council was established as the supreme body in the revolutionary liberation struggle for the Ukrainian independent conciliar state, which functioned on democratic national principles. It promised to cooperate with all the enslaved peoples of Europe and Asia, who fought for their independence and recognised the same right of Ukraine.

At that time, the Ukrainian representatives of clandestine activity became also active. For example, Fedun (1919–1951) in his works studied the question of Ukraine's place in the system of international relations. The author proved that history created all the conditions for the formation of independent nation-states, and this process was organic and natural. He actively studied such concepts as ‘the idea of the nation’, ‘the idea of a democratic constitutional-parliamentary republic’. The author pointed out the imperfection of international relations of that time, which did not provide proper conditions for self-determination of peoples, when large states operated on such concepts as ‘strategic positions’ and ‘strategic boundaries’ (Dergachov 1996).

In the mid-20th c., the emigrant movement intensified; its representative Lev Rebet (1912–1957) in his book ‘Theory of the nation’ (1956) tried to justify the idea that the cause of military conflicts was the national self-determination of states and, in his opinion, the world was threatened not by small sovereign states, but by large multinational ones, which strived to expand the boundaries of their domination as much as possible.

During that time, the emigrant ‘Ukrainian Magazine’ was also published, which included the works of Kaminsky. The author proved that just balance of nation-states, as a consequence of healthy and true nationalism and internationalism, could become a guarantee of a new international order, as it could create an organically balanced international system (Kaminsky 2005). The author also criticised the American geopolitics of USSR containment, developed by the leading American geostrategist George Kennan, because of his incorrect interpretation of the prospects of the Ukrainian state.

In 1966, Sosnovsky (1919–1975) in his work ‘Ukraine in the international arena’ tried to explore the activities of various Ukrainian foreign forces and studied the reason for the lack of their significant results. In his opinion, it stemmed from the fact that they failed to create a common centre and acted in most of the cases in different vectors.

After the official condemnation of the cult of Stalin in 1956, during the so-called period of ‘Khrushchev's thaw’ in the USSR, the activities of a new generation of young creative intelligentsia, mostly literary, called the ‘sixties’ intensified. They did not doubt the official Soviet ideology, but raised the problem of Ukrainian language and the necessity to develop Ukrainian culture. In the work of their representative Ivan Dzyuba ‘Internationalism or russification’, which was written in 1965, but officially published and widespread only in 1990 (Dziuba 1990), the crisis of Ukrainian culture was explained, which within the Soviet Union was considered second-rate and provincial.

The activity of the ‘sixties’ was quite short as in the second half of the 1960s they were subjected to mass repression. However, they created the basis for Ukrainian ‘dissidentism’—the resistance movement to the Soviet regime (1970–1980), in all spheres of public life (Dnistryanskyj 2010). During the 1980s, the dissident movement was practically defeated, but it managed to influence the ideological visions and worldview of the population not only within the ethnic Ukrainian lands, but it also changed their views about their future abroad.

As the result of the evolution of the geopolitical view of Ukraine on August 24, 1991, the state attained its independence. Historical Stage 3 of the formation of Ukraine's geopolitical view began with its independence in 1991 and continues to this day. However, this stage has a very specific feature, as since the independence of Ukraine, its geopolitical view has been gradually transformed into the geopolitical interest, which is a system of goals and objectives in the process of the state's geopolitics implementation.

After Ukraine attained independence in 1991, its geopolitical view was changed dramatically as in the past periods the main ideas it struggled for was independence of the state. After 1991, Ukraine faced a big number of new challenges and problems. Nevertheless, after this time exact ideas how the state must develop, what must be made and solved appeared. As these ideas developed on the basis of a scientific approach and remained actual for a long period of time they can be called geopolitical interests of the state. Moreover, geopolitical interests of independent Ukraine derived from the geopolitical view of Ukraine before its independence, and were influenced by its geopolitical location and realities of modern times. They were explained in works of various modern researches which were mentioned in the paragraph ‘Review of the research topic in the scientific literature’ of this article and will be studied in the text which follows.

The primary task for identifying and substantiating the objective geopolitical interests of Ukraine at the present stage is to evaluate its geopolitical location, which is both profitable and quite complex. One of the difficulties is due to the fact that the issue of regional affiliation of the state is still unresolved. After all, most scientists and researchers consider Ukraine regionally exclusively a European state (Pyrozhkov 2000).

In turn, Dergachov (2011) considers Ukraine a bi-regional state, which means its peripheral position in relation to two regions—Europe and Eurasia. According to the scientist, the state is interested in developing its bi-regionalism and maintaining constructive international relations between Europe and Eurasia. The fact is that Ukraine is characterised by an average level of economic development internationally and it is under increasing pressure from Russia, the United States and the EU. Therefore, the lack of state tradition as well as a clearly defined conceptual foreign policy determines the uncertain geopolitical orientations of Ukraine.

Brzezinski (2000, 2006) in his works assigns Ukraine the role of a ‘buffer zone’ between such centres of economic power as the EU and Russia and between such centres of political and military forces as NATO and Russia. In addition, the scientist believes that Western politicians evaluate Ukraine only through the prism of their relations with Russia.

Table 3, given below, offers a SWOT analysis of the geopolitical location of the state, developed by the author personally, which became possible after studying the data provided in the works of such authors as Babenko et al. (2020), Chernyk (2017), Gvozdj (2020), Dnistryanskyj (2000, 2008), Dzhaman and Shukanov (2007), Klyuchko (2002), Skitsj (2015), Vasylenko (2000) and others.

On examining the data presented in Table 3, it becomes possible to understand how interconnected the strengths and weaknesses of the geopolitical location of the state are, how weaknesses affect the formation of threats and strengths become the basis for opportunities. Moreover, threats and opportunities are also interconnected, as insufficient use of geopolitical opportunities by the state leads to the situation in which the number of threats will increase in the future. In turn, making the most of all opportunities will reduce and prevent possible threats.

From the data shown in Table 3, it becomes evident, that Ukraine occupies both favourable and at the same time very complicated geopolitical location. On one hand, Ukraine's geopolitical location gives plenty of opportunities for the development of the state. These are: sufficient use of its transit potential and developed roads for strengthening the state's geopolitical potential; possibility of developing cooperation with neighbouring states—especially the EU countries in order to reduce the negative influence of Russia; implementation of all possible tools and methods to weaken the status of Ukraine as a buffer-zone state etc. At the same time, the geopolitical location of the state is very complicated as Ukraine is situated between two rival geopolitical leaders—the EU and Russia. Moreover, the state is too close to hot points of Europe (the self-proclaimed Transnistrian Republic) and of Asia (self-proclaimed countries of the Caucasus region). Also, Ukraine has unresolved state borders issues due to the annexation of state territories by Russia and plenty of other problematic questions. To develop and propose the main geopolitical interests of Ukraine, SWOT analysis of its geopolitical location must be taken into consideration as it shows the main problematic issues which must be solved by the state and main opportunities that can positively affect the state's development.

Having analysed the strengths and weaknesses, threats and opportunities of the geopolitical location of Ukraine, as well as the works of such authors as Doroshko and Shpakova (2011), Martsikhiv and Shepelyak (2020), Panchenko (2019), Shulga (2009), Zinko (2012), information given on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (Minsterrstvo 2021) and in such information-analytical sites as Victor Gvozd's Geopolitical Diary (Heopolitychnyy 2021) and Olesandr Razumkov Ukrainian centre for economic and political studies (Ukrayins’kyy 2021), this article points out the following categories of geopolitical interests of Ukraine: (1) geopolitical interests at national (state) level; (2) geopolitical interests at regional level; and (3) geopolitical interests at global level, which are represented in Table 4.

The implementation of the main geopolitical interests of Ukraine highlighted in Table 4 will ensure the state's sustainable development, solve the existing internal and external problems and will provide a basis for Ukraine to be a strong and independent participant of international relations, able to defend its own national interests.