Ever since the proclamation of independence the endless and not too effective discussions in relation to the optimization of relations between a center and regions, between the capital and province, between a city and region, etc are under way in Ukraine. However, the meaty public discussion is still ahead.
Naturally, there were a few work-outs which were even tested at national level. For example, the project of administrative and territorial reform, projects of regional consolidation intended to improve management, draft project on the new economic zoning. Finally, Ukrainian cities with over a million of inhabitants also deserve special attention.
Now politicians and public are occupied with the pattern of political influence in the regions, with the regional specific of electoral conduct. The center reminds of the existence of regional differences, and politicians demonstrate territorial patriotism and appeal to local identities.
Regions are not playing mum and rivet public attention from time to time. At least, Crimea, Donetsk, Kharkiv, and Odesa Oblasts keep hinting the center that they are not the first, but certainly not the last ones. All of it means that it is too early for Kyiv to test the model of political centralism and administrative and territorial reorganization which is under way in politically-minded Moscow.
If we leave the past alone, we could grab the chance and tackle the internal policy issues, attempt to analyze and revise traditional regional development strategy.
In particular, it is not only the problem of common territorial development conceptions. We should also consider ideas and projects of redistribution of the territory of Ukraine. We hope that disputants will consider the prospects of “domestic geopolitics of Ukraine and touch upon many other topical questions concerning the administrative management of territories.
To begin with, in Ukraine both experts and politicians failed to understand on what territory we live, what are the foundations—either natural or artificial—of administrative, economic, cultural and social division of the Ukrainian space of modern Ukraine.
It is strange, but nobody cares about the vagueness of such concept as “region”. „Region" and “regions” are on everybody's lips despite the fact that according to the Constitution “region” remains the basic administrative and territorial unit.
On the other hand, who can explain, why, along with the renaming of streets, such titles as the “head of oblast state administration” and “governor” became synonyms? What is the background and what are the hints of such symbolic manipulation with statuses and geosocial images? These complicated questions need answers some time or other.
Secondly, Ukraine can not continue to use the outdated cartography. In fact, when politicians and publicists set to reason about the historical and cultural features of the segments of Ukrainian territory, they do not even feel that they do not dwell upon organic earth, but about artificial and inherited political and administrative constructs. For example, such widely used names as Halychyna, Bukovyna, etc. are not so much, in fact, historical and cultural descriptions, as the products of internal geopolitics of countries and empires which included a number of Ukrainian territories.
Thirdly, transformation crisis, that resulted in re-orientation and change of specialization of cities and big industrial enclaves which makes hopeless the policy of recreation of old regional proportions and traditional economic zoning in Ukraine. It is high time to revise or even give up the expense and morally outdated models of regional policy of the epoch of industrialism. Actually Ukraine is on the verge of the choice of a new format of system integration of its territory, infrastructure, social and cultural space.
Fourth, some experts and politicians begin to realize that for successful development of Ukraine, which is at the civilization, geopolitical and geocultural intersection, traditional regionalism will not do. At least, the design of forward strategies of development of territories, introduction of the new standards of organization of the living space is possible only on the basis of interdisciplinary approaches.
Maybe, only interdisciplinary approach will help to find new criteria of the typology of regions; master complex strategies of capitalization and increase of the value of country’s territory and its lands; bring down artificial barriers and boost exchange among territorial units of real economic policy, and not of administrative activity only.
Fifth, tackling of most problems is impossible on the basis of technocratic approaches only, without the transition to more synthetic ways, which would outline directions and vectors of the „internal geopolitics of Ukraine". It seems that only the intelligent „internal geopolitics" will allow Ukraine to go for consolidation and making of mechanisms of co-operation between subjects, which determine:
development of territories (organs of local self-government),
regional development (oblast state administration),
placing and development of infrastructure (Cabinet of Ministers),
image and investment attractiveness of territories (business and organs which form a regulator policy), and
co-ordination and synchronization of different models of inclusion of regions into the world competition (MFA, regional power).
Sixths, there is a good reason to hope, that the use of possibilities of „internal geopolitics" will allow to promote anti-crisis potential of the state, to prevent regional localization of new disintegration factors which, unfortunately, continue to be reproduced due to objective and subjective reasons.
Finally, only after we will understand the aims and tasks of internal geopolitics bring out a new hierarchy and configuration of subjects which are responsible for planning, promotion and realization of a new managerial model of territorial development, there will appear a possibility to go over to institutional design and revision of national legislation that regulates regional development.
We hope, that discussion of this topic which we designated by a metaphor „internal geopolitics", will allow us to make a better picture of problems and prospects of the regional policy in Ukraine, bring out the landscape and geometry of a new and yet unknown regional Ukraine.
