REGIONAL GEOPOLITICAL PROJECT “INTERMARIUM”: PERSPECTIVES OF REALIZATION

The emergence of geopolitical projects of association of the countries in the “Intermarium” dates back to the period after the First World War. In the era of the Cold War, some countries of the Baltic-Black Sea region were part of the Soviet Union, while others were Soviet satellites. Expansion of NATO and EU toward the East in post-bipolar period has resulted in strengthening of the position of the West in Central and Eastern Europe. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have turned into an outpost of the West on the border with Russia. Implementation of the “Eastern Partnership” project leads to increased infl uence of the EU in Ukraine and Moldova. Possible geoeconomic integration within the “Intermarium” is to be of low effi ciency. Belarus has a key strategic position in the region and is an ally of Russia. Potential threats that are emanate from the geopolitics of Russia in Eastern Europe, encourages countries of the Baltic-Black Sea region to develop new geopolitical projects in creating of defensive militarypolitical association. Contemporary neo-imperial geopolitics of the US in Europe is aimed at strengthening of its infl uence and provides, in particular, the support to projects of regional interstate associations, designed to “containment” of Russia. For the countries of the Western Europe geopolitical projects of integration associations in the Baltic-Black Sea region can be designed to form a “cordon sanitaire” for the isolation of Russia Ukraine is a most interested country in the implementation of the military-political project “Intermarium”. The potential militarypolitical association «Intermarium» will be fully functioned only under condition of preservation of the confrontation between the West and Russia.

1. Foreign Minister Rinkēvičs urges to transform Eastern Partnership into Euro-Atlantic Eastern Partnership. Mode of access: http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/news/latestnews/13631

2. Friedman, George. Borderlands: A Geopolitical Journey in Eurasia. Austin, TX: Stratfor, 2011. 112 р.

3. Friedman, George. Borderlands: The New Strategic Landscape // Stratfor, 2014. May 6. Mode of access: https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/borderlands-new-strategiclandscape

4. Gaman-Golutvina, O.V.; Ponomaryova, E.G.; Shishelina, L.N. “Vostochnoye partnerstvo”: bor’ba stsenariyev razvitiya (EU’s “Eastern Partnership”: Rival Development Scenarios) // Polis, 2014, No. 5, pp. 20-40.

5. Gorelova, G.V.; Ryabtsev, V.N. Razrabotka kognitivnykh modeley geopoliticheskikh sistem (Chernomorsko-Kaspiyskiy region) (Development of Cognitive Models Geopolitical Systems (Black Sea– Caspian Region)) // Izvestiya YUFU. Tekhnicheskiye nauki, 2014, No. 6, pp. 22-32.

6. Grachev, M.N. Geopoliticheskoye modelirovaniye kak raznovidnost’ strukturno- funktsional’nogo analiza mirovoy politiki (Geopolitical Simulation as a Variety of Structural and Functional Analysis of World Politics) // Sovremennyye geopoliticheskiye protsessy: novyye vyzovy i poiski resheniy: 2 Vol. Vol.1. Saint Petersburg: BGTU, 2011. Pp. 11-16.

7. Ilyin, M.V. Geokhronopolitika Balto-Chernomor’ya (Geochronopolitics of the Baltic- Black Sea Region) // Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. Seriya. Politologiya, 2009, No. 1, pp. 49-58.

8. Isaev, B.A. Geopolitika klassicheskaya i geopolitika sovremennaya (The Geopolitics Classical and the Geopolitics Modern) // Polis, 2011, No. 2, pp. 69-85.

9. Jorgensen, Knud E. The European Union in Multilateral Diplomacy // The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2009, Vol. 4, pp. 189-209.

10. Lurie, S.V.; Kazaryan, L.G. Printsipy organizatsii geopoliticheskogo prostranstva (vvedeniye v problemu na primere Vostochnogo voprosa) (Principles of Organization of the Geopolitical Space (Introduction to the Problem on the Example of the Eastern Problem)) // Obshchestvennyye nauki i sovremennost’, 1994, No. 4, pp. 85-96.

11. Lypa, Yu. Vseukrayins’ka trylohiya: u 2 t. Vol. 2 Chornomors’ka doktryna. Chornomors’kyy prostir (Atlas). Rozpodil Rosiyi. (All-Ukrainian Trilogy: in 2 vol. Vol. 2

12. Black Sea Doctrine. Black Sea Area (Atlas). Division of Russia) Kiev: MAUP, 2007. 392 p.

13. Manners, Ian. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? // Journal of Common Market Studies, 2002, Vol. 40, No.2, pp. 235-238.

14. Rudnytsky S.L. Chomu my khochemo samostiynoyi Ukrayiny? (Why Do We Want an Independent Ukraine?) Lviv: Svit, 1994. 416 p.

15. Ruggie, John G. Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution // International Organization, 1992, Vol. 46, pp. 561-598.

16. Troebst, Stefan. “Intermarium” and “Wedding to the Sea”: Politics of History and Mental Mapping in East Central Europe // European Review of History, 2003, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 293-321.

17. Tsymbursky V.L. Bor’ba za yevraziyskuyu “Atlantidu”: geoekonomika i geostrategiya // Ostrov Rossiya.Geopoliticheskiye i geokhronologicheskiye raboty. 1993- 2006. (The Fight for a “Eurasian Atlantis”: Geoeconomics and Geostrategy // Island Russia. Geopolitical and Chronopolitical Work. 1993-2006). Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2007. pp. 301- 339.

18. Ukaz Prezydenta Ukrayiny “Pro rishennya Rady natsional’noyi bezpeky i oborony Ukrayiny vid 6 travnya 2015 roku № 287/2015 “Pro Stratehiyu natsional’noyi bezpeky Ukrayiny” (Decree of the President of Ukraine “On the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine on May 6, 2015 No 287/2015 “On National Security Strategy of Ukraine”). Mode of access: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/287/2015.

19. USEUCOM Theater Strategy, October 2015. Mode of access: http://www.eucom.mil/media- library/documents/2016 Voskressenski, A.D. Kontseptsii regionalizatsii, regional’nykh podsistem, regional’nykh kompleksov i regional’nykh trans-formatsiy v sovremennykh mezh du narodnykh otnosheniyakh (Concepts of Regionalization, Regio nal Subsystems, Regional Complexes and Regional Transformation in Contemporary International Relations) // Comparative Politics Russia, 2012, Vol. 3, No.2(8), pp.30-58.

20. Zielonka, Jan. Europe as a global actor: empire by example? // International Affairs, 2008, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp. 471-484.