Search

У статті розвивається теза щодо зумовленості проблеми національних меншин у період Української національної революції та незалежної України на сучасному етапі необхідністю збереження самоідентифікації як українців, так і інших національних меншин в умовах збереження державності. Вказується на залежність вирішення питання національних меншин в Українській Народній Республіці від позиції Тимчасового уряду та більшовиків. Визначені фактори, які впливають на усунення розбіжностей у національному питанні у незалежній Україні на сучасному етапі.

The article discloses key ways and methods of conducting hybrid wars by the communist Russia against Ukrainian governments during the Ukrainian revolution period, and by the Russian Federation in the territories of Crimea and Donbas since 2014. At the present stage, the development of mass media contributed to the emergence of the hybrid warfare as a political phenomenon. These wars, aimed at the liquidation of the Ukrainian statehood, used separatist movements. The status of the hybrid warfare stipulated preservation of diplomatic relations. During the information war, Bolsheviks successfully used propaganda for disseminating their ideology to succeed in military actions. The “fifth column” had also significantly contributed to the victory and inculcation of the Bolshevist order, facilitating the advance of Russian forces and success in the war campaign. Nevertheless, Central Council, Ukrainian State of Pavlo Skoropadskyi, and the UPR Directorate undertook steps to alleviate the political, propagandistic, financial, and cultural communistic pressure. The members of the Ukrainian governments of 1917–1921 considered Ukrainian national idea the core of counteraction and consolidation of the Ukrainian nation. Ideological paradigms of the Russian Federation’s hybrid warfare in Donbas and annexation of Crimea stemmed from the propaganda of the “Russian world” idea. Unfortunately, the information impact of V. Putin’s ideology on the Ukrainian society is well-thought and planned. International law considers hybrid warfare beyond any international norms and conventions.

The article is devoted to the consideration of the specifics of information confrontation during the Russian-Georgian conflict of 2008. Ukraine, as any country in the world, has a strong need for an effective system to counter information challenges and attacks. Nowadays, some countries consider the information war as an effective tool for foreign policy implementation. The development of information security in the current humanitarian situation of Ukraine requires studying and taking into account relevant achievements of the modern foreign countries. Thus, especially valuable is the experience gained in similar international situations, namely in the Russian-Georgian conflict of 2008, its information component being of particular interest. The majority of scientists support the idea that the information confrontation in this conflict, despite the apparent military and technical superiority of the Russian Federation, remains on the Georgian side. A prerequisite for conducting an effective information war against the Russian Federation in 2008 was the implementation of reforms in the early 21st century, strengthening of freedom of speech, and further establishment of the media system in the country. An effective, systematic work of media, although not free from subjective assessments, served the success of the information campaign of the Georgian side. Russian attempts to show Georgia as an aggressor, similar to those undertaken in modern Ukraine, were not successful; moreover, Georgian media, together with foreign journalists, managed to disclose the occupational character of the Russian Federation’s actions. “Georgian lessons” of information war should be considered as an important foundation for the development of the information security strategy of Ukraine. Evidently, their analysis should be systematic and unprejudiced, should take into consideration all achievements and mistakes of the performers, and, above all, allow for an objective and adequate forecast of new humanitarian challenges.