جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "ukraine" در نشریات گروه "جغرافیا"

Ukraine is Russia's strategic depth in Eastern Europe. The Ukraine crisis is the result of Russia's attitude towards Ukraine. The war between Russia and Ukraine is a war between powerful members of the international system and a power conflict between Russia, the United States, the European Union, NATO, and it has shown a new polarization in the international system. As a regional power and a strategic ally of Russia, Iran has been affected by the war between the West and Russia. This article, with the aim of clarifying the hidden and enigmatic dimension of the effect of this crisis, seeks to answer the question that; What are the consequences of Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the international system in the horizon of 2030? Also, what consequences does it have on the national interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran? The current research was carried out using descriptive and analytical method and using documentary and library sources. The research findings show that; The war between Russia and Ukraine has affected the political, economic, and military aspects of the international system. It has also affected Iran's political and economic interests as Russia's ally in the region and has caused a change in Iran's foreign policy and a shift towards the East, a halt in nuclear negotiations, and the formation of economic cooperation between Russia and Iran. It has also caused Iran to worry about NATO's presence in the Caucasus, affecting Israel-Russia relations and Iran's interests in Syria, as well as energy security.

Competition, conflict, and confrontation between the great powers in some parts of the world, which are of considerable strategic importance in terms of geopolitics and geo-economics, are among the salient features of the international system. So that usual in the occurrence of crises in regions and countries that have such characteristics, the effective hand, and role of great powers can be seen in the creation, extension, and management of crises. Ukraine is one of those countries that has always been influenced and competed by Russia and the West due to its unique characteristics. But the competition and confrontation between Russia and the West (the European Union, the United States, and its executive arm NATO) have escalated significantly since the Soviet collapse and Ukraine's independence. Because on the one hand, Ukraine has always been in the spotlight for Russia due to geopolitical, geostrategic, geoeconomic position, as well as its historical, cultural, racial, linguistic, and religious ties with Russian society. On the other hand, from the very beginning of the independence of the former Soviet republics, Western governments and institutions pursued expansionist policies in Eastern Europe, and due to the post-collapse turmoil, tried to membership of Eastern European countries in Western institutions, countries of the region, especially countries located in the Near Abroad region to align with themselves and In this way to prevent regional influence and Russia's use of the position and characteristics of these countries in order to regain lost power. In the meantime, the duo to Ukraine's neighborhood with Russia and its geopolitical, and geo-economic importance, as well as its strong desire to move westward after independence provided an opportunity for the West to accelerate the process of Russia's geopolitical siege, thereby preventing Russia from regaining power. Therefore, these conflicting goals and power struggles have caused Ukraine to always be the scene of competition and confrontation between the West and Russia after independence and to witness serious conflicts and political-security crises such as the events of the 2004 orange revolution, the 2006 blue revolution, and the crises of 2014 and 2022. Therefore, the main purpose of this article is to use the approach of offensive realism to answer the question of what is the importance of Ukraine for Russia and the West, which has always been the scene of competition and confrontation between Russia and the West after independence?

The research method in this article is qualitative which with a descriptive-analytical approach has answered the main question of this article in the conceptual context of the theory of offensive realism. Authors to answer the main question, while describing and analyzing the reasons for the importance of the Near Abroad region in general and the reasons for the importance of Ukraine for the conflicting goals of Russia and the West in particular, Ukraine's western policies have also been analyzed and in this way, we have explained the role of this importance and Ukraine's western policies in the competition and confrontation between Russia and the West in Ukraine. For data collection, reference has been to library resources, including books, articles, theses, documents, and authoritative Internet sources. The data collection tool has been also taking notes.

Ukraine is one of those countries that, due to its unique characteristics, has always been influenced and victimized by Power competitions between different countries and has never been able to determine its own destiny independently. In the 14th and 16th centuries, Ukraine became the scene of competition between Polish and Lithuania. Then in the 17th century, it became a sphere of influence between Russia and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, which continued until the end of the 18th century which Austria replaced the Polish in the western regions of Ukraine. The domination lasted until the end of World War I. With the formation of the Soviet Union and Ukraine's membership in the Union, the country once again became an area of Soviet influence on the one hand and Poland on the other. With the start of World War II, Ukraine was not spared from the fire and was occupied and destroyed by the Nazis. During the Cold War, it was versus the Western bloc due to its membership in the Eastern bloc. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine finally gained its independence; but because of its special position and importance for the conflicting strategic goals of Russia and the West, from then until now have always been the scene of serious competition and confrontation between the West and Russia and various political-security crises. According to the offensive realism approach, the ultimate goal of the great powers is to achieve hegemony, and they try to achieve this goal by maximizing power and preventing rival powers from gaining power. Accordingly, Russia's strategic goal since the collapse of the Soviet Union has been to return to the greatness of the Soviet era and regain lost power, and to achieve this goal it has sought to take advantage of republics in the Near Abroad region. Ukraine is one of these republics that the best way possible can bring Russia closer to this goal due to its identity, geopolitical, geoeconomic, and economic characteristics. On the other hand, the West's understanding of this capability has led the West, especially the United States, as the current hegemon, to make every effort to prevent Russia from regaining power and Reaching the position of hegemony and A rival for this country, to get this country out of Russian influence and put it on its front to prevent Russia from achieving its strategic goal. In this regard, Ukraine's western policies since the collapse of the Soviet Union and its independence have also helped the West to get closer to this goal. Therefore, the findings of the article show that the importance of Ukraine's identity, geopolitics, geo-economics, and economics in achieving the conflicting strategic goals of Russia (regaining power and returning to the greatness of the former Soviet Union) and the West (preventing Russia from regaining power), as well as Ukraine's western policies have caused this country to after independence, always be the scene of competition and confrontation between the West and Russia, and to witness serious conflicts and various political-security crises such as the events of the 2004 orange revolution, the 2006 blue revolution, and the crises of 2014 and 2022.

The purpose of this article is to examine the referendums on independence and territorial integrity, emphasizing the separation of Crimea from Ukraine. The research method was descriptive-analytical and taken from library sources. In response to the question, what was the position of independence and territorial integrity in the referendum on the separation of Crimea from Ukraine. The results showed that the principle of territorial integrity and the principle of sovereignty of states in international law are principles that demand respect for the integrity of the land or territory of other countries in the international arena. These principles state that the territory of a country should never be violated, invaded or illegally divided. One of the consequences of the annexation of Crimea to Russia is to legitimize the independence-seeking efforts of the nations inside the territory of Russia, such as the Chechens. The Crimean crisis revealed the theoretical and legal limitations of the constitution when faced with the people's desire to have an independent government. The pathology of the current situation shows that international law and constitutional rights do not have a significant and effective effect on making the principle of territorial integrity in the constitution irrevocable.

The crises of Syria (in the Middle East region) and Ukraine (in Eastern Europe), which began with some internal, regional and global issues, have continued to threaten the interests of stakeholders such as the Russian Federation. There are many theoretical models for analyzing crises and how the reactions and reactions of stakeholder stakeholders and stakeholders are presented. The crisis model is one of the important theoretical models in this relation. The action and reaction of actors during the crisis stemmed from their perception of the severity of the defeat of the three elements. It should also be noted that actors often face three types of software, hardware, and intelligence management in crisis situations in order to control risky conditions and to deal with destabilizing elements. Russia is not averse to taking clever measures and avoiding a passive approach to manage the upheaval of Syria and Ukraine, as the length of the conflicts imposes more damages on Russia than anything else. It is worth noting that one of the important reasons that the author choose Russian Federation as a case study is its interest and influence in both crises, as well as many aspects of social-cultural contexts, political structure. The economic and geographic location of the two countries has been struck by the crisis, and there are some interesting and remarkable similarities about the bases and reasons for the onset and continuation of the crises. This paper is intended to find an answer this question that “How did the Russian Federation perceive the crises in Syria and Ukraine and how did it manage its transformation, according to the model of the crisis cube?
 

The research method is descriptive-analytic and it is a fundamental in terms of its nature. The method of data gathering is based upon library studies and the use of books, articles and online resources.

Considering the reasons for Syria's importance in political, security, military and economic areas and the occurrence of a crisis in Syria shows that perceptions of the Russian authorities are based on three indicators of the severity of the threat, the amount of time and the level of consciousness. Evidences suggest that in Syrian crisis, given that there was enough time available to the Kremlin decision makers which pave the way for engagement in bureaucratic and advisory actions, and because the threat is mild and with sufficient time to make decisions, bureaucratic actions have been turned up and many plans have been chosen to choose the best strategy, but due to the lack of detailed information about the plans and strategic options of the rivals of the time, the place and the type of possible actions of the enemies, the level of uncertainty Russian strategy has not been comprehensive.

The research findings shows that the perception of the authorities of the country was seriously threatened by the crisis as a result of the Ukrainian crisis in the strategic depth and the Russian Federation's secretion, hence the following high-risk crises or at the point A of the Cube on the other hand, the Russians face a lot of pressure for practical action, and the element of strategic surprise has put them under pressure. However, according to the Russian authorities, the Syrian crisis is in the midst of crises and stagnation, or at the C-point, and there is no direct threat to the vital values ​​of Russia, so there is little threat, and this is due to the presence of terrorist elements in the autonomous states of Chechnya and Dagestan, as well as fears from collapse of the balance of power in the Middle East. On the other hand, there is a great deal of opportunity for the Russian authorities and political authorities. Russia has placed a major emphasis on crisis intelligence management with the priority of leveraging hardware and software in crises such as Ukraine, so the scope of Russian actions is prioritized including using an invasive military force, an energy weapon, diplomatic political mechanisms (Geneva one and two, Minsk one and two, and Normandy four) and the media. On the other hand, in the Syrian crisis, due to the fact that there is no direct threat to the Russian land and is outside the country's security loop, it has made the crisis intelligent management model more effective, with a focus on the use of soft, optimal and less costly mechanisms. Hence, the line of Russia's actions in the Syrian crisis has been prioritized, with the urgency of aggressive behavior from diplomatic politicos, the ban on the Tunis Summit, the ban on the Paris Summit, the active participation in the Summit of Astana and Sochi, the alliance and coalition, financial and economic assistance, and information, military support Weapons and media are stretched.

Putin and the annexation of Crimea to Russia; geopolitical analysis of Russia's action in annexation of Crimea peninsulaExtended abstract

Appearance of the Ukraine crisis as one of the most important controversies of 21 century, has put Russia in front of the west and became to one of the most controversial issues in international arena. Manifestation of west advocators in the election of 2004 in Ukraine and the next events of it conduced to the extension of tension in the relations of west and Russia. The intensification of these tensions brought to the creation of feeling danger in classical interests of Russia and after the exacerbation of crisis, Russia inserted Crimea peninsula to itself. The annexation of Crimea peninsula to Russia faced with a bitter reaction of the west and Europe and they imposed hard and widespread bans against Russia. This article tries to answer this critical question that what interests does Russia gain by the annexation of Crimea to itself which has caused to the endurance of hard bans of the west and Europe and also what geopolitical element or factors caused to Russian's decision and its action about the annexation of Crimea peninsula to this country and what geopolitical aims does it have about this decision and action?

The research method of this article is analytical- explanatory method and it has studied the problem of research by using library and internet resources with a geopolitical approach and by incorporation of classic and modern geopolitical theories.

The year of 2014 was the important and controversial year for the Russia. The Ukraine crisis and the annexation of Crimea to Russia converted the relation of the west and Russia to the congelation point. In reality, Ukraine is a club for the confrontation of west and Russia and westerns tries to drag Ukraine in to their block to maintain a strategy of geopolitical oppression on Russia. This matter has caused to Russia's fear about its interests in the western and south western borders. Ukraine because of its geostrategic situation as a buffer situation of Ukraine between the Russia and west (NATO) and supplying the security of Russian's navy and the security of black sea and also because of the Sevastopol Island's location in Crimea has a particular importance for Russia. Putin wants to use Ukraine as a buffer region between itself and Europe (especially NATO). This policy from the age of Stalin was a safe policy. In this time, the annexation of Baltic region to European Union and NATO has caused to the failure of creating secure buffer region of Russia. By repetition of the crisis in Ukraine we can see the fear of Russians and Putin's efforts for maintaining Ukraine as a buffer region to protect the Russia's interests. From the geo economical view, Russia pays attention to the Ukraine's market of energy consumption and also regards this country as a pathway of transferring the Russia's energy to Europe. More than 90 percent of Russia's energy exports to Europe by the path of Ukraine. More than this, Ukraine is one of the important importer of energy especially gas from Russia. Besides these existent energy resources in Ukraine, Russia has noted to other mineral resources such as the resources of Manganese, Iron, Phosphate, Uranium, Titanium, and Granite and … and also agricultural products. From the geo cultural view, culture and identity of the Ukraine people is important for Russia because Ukraine more than being one of the soviet's republics and Kiev which now is a political center of Ukraine, from the past centuries has been a center for Russian dynasties and still between the Russian language is called as metropolises of Russia and has cultural and national interests to Russia. So by regarding to the ethnic and linguistic similarities between the populations of Russia and Ukraine, localism and advocation of Ukraine's Russians is a geocultural ends of the Russia. Moreover, Russia pays attention to the protection of culture extension and Russian values in Ukraine.

What is scrutinized in this research was researching this problem that what geopolitical element or factors conduced to Russia's movement and decision to annexation of Crimea peninsula to this country and what geopolitical ends does Russia have to make this decision and action; in the other words, what geopolitical interests and values does Russia describe and appoint for itself which by this action has put itself in front of the west and has accepted the consequences of this action such as the bans of west. An answer that was given to this question is that Russia because of disability to confirm its power in Ukraine completely and feeling danger about leaning of Ukraine to west and loosing its interests in this country, for maintaining its minimum interests in Ukraine, will annex Crimea peninsula to itself in order to use the important geopolitical situation of Ukraine and this island in the geo strategic, geo economic and geocultural forms and protect its interests. Russia after the annexation of Crimea, undergoes the most boisterous bans in financial and economic zones that impose high pressures to Russia's economy; nonetheless, Putin doesn’t accept to condone Ukraine and Crimea because he thinks that his interests depends on the dominance on Crimea. So Putin tried hard to annex Crimea to Russia and despite of European and western bans doesn’t accept to leave Crimea because loosing Crimea is equal to loosing all interests in Ukraine and widely in Europe and its vicinity (black sea, Mediterranean Sea and …) for him. So by regarding to these geopolitical interests that Ukraine has for the Russia, it is unlikely that Russia leaves Crimea unless more important and valuable interests convince it which it is unseemly and impossible. Key words: Russia, Putin, Crimea peninsula, geopolitics, Ukraine, European Union.