GONCHAROVA L.N. Analysis of Geopolitical and Geo-Economic Interaction of Regional Systems

DOI 10.35775/PSI.2019.31.1.002

L.N. GONCHAROVA Doctor of Sciences (economics), Associate Professor, Professor at the Chair of Economics, Belgorod University of Cooperative Movement, Economics and Law, Belgorod, Russia

ANALYSIS OF GEOPOLITICAL AND GEO-ECONOMIC INTERACTION OF REGIONAL SYSTEMS

Relations of the countries, which are centers of regional power, and the countries and peoples of the periphery can occur in a format called “associated-dependent development” when the centers of power act as guarantors of independence and development sponsors of the periphery. It should be borne in mind that dependence is not always the result of the policy of the countries which are centers of power. Strictly speaking, there is an interdependence, largely based on the economic and geopolitical interests of both sides – the center and the periphery.

Key words: geopolitics, geoeconomics, “center”, “periphery”, regional space, synergy, regional policy.

When analyzing the process of formation of the Eurasian regional space, it is necessary to fix the process of formation of its contour of regional community as a result of the interaction of internal and external processes.

It is obvious that the neighboring regional formations interact by their peripheries, creating a special geosocial subspace or contact zone of cultures and countries [3]. In other words, the contact area is usually a composite space.

Heterogeneity of the contact zone space implies the presence in it of multiple interactions, requiring the use of a certain synergetic approach [3]. The basic concept of synergy is determination of the state resulting from the multivariate and ambiguous behavior of such multi-element structures or multifactorial media that do not degrade to the state standard for closed-loop systems of the thermodynamic type, but develop as a result of openness, the flow of energy from the outside, the nonlinearity of internal processes, the emergence of special regimes with exacerbation and at the same time the presence of more than one stable state, which can lead to the formation of new structures and systems, including those more complex than the original. The periphery objectively has an important role; it naturally ensures interaction between regions and civilizations, countries and population of the border areas and therefore the development of the global social system as a whole. Reconciling and maintaining the balance of interests and formation of super-group system of values in the contact zones contribute to the sustainability and productivity of interaction of all subjects of international relations. Disruption of such balance causes destabilization of one or more regional systems [4. P. 13-24].

In the periphery space, different cultures, ideologies, social and political systems cross and interact. One example is the sub-region of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was the place of interaction of the Orthodox, Catholic and Islamic religions that they represent [7]. Another example is the conflicts that broke out after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and then after the collapse of the USSR [16].

A striking example is the well-known protracted Palestinian conflict between the Arab states and Israel in 1967 and 1974 [21. P. 54-59], even conflicts within the Islamic world in the Middle East, when the problem of the crisis of Islamic identity was exposed and the Islamic contradictions aggravated [13].

It should be remembered that contact zones play an important role in geopolitics. They may play the role of sanitary cordons or geopolitical buffers between powers or unions of states. Consideration of the history of empires and colonial powers suggests that buffer zones are created when they serves as obstacles to the expansion of the competitor’s influence or its penetration into the depths of another state.

The contact zones have inter-regional location. For example, such are the territories of Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous region) and Tibet, ethnographic Kurdistan in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Balkans and others.

The way of life and relationships that have developed over many centuries in large regional spaces determine regional identity. According to the Swiss researcher I. Besson the synthesis of a number of components of regional identity “has a dominant power” over the consciousness of all ethnic and religious groups individually and the regional community in general [3. P. 136]. All that diversity must be regarded as a set of interrelated variables that develop independently or in interaction as a “function of time/space.” Any threats to the integrity of the regional community or emergence of an alien element, interference in intraregional relations and restructuring of the structures lead or may lead to a protracted identity crisis.

Thus, during the Ottoman Empire ethnic groups existed in a relative balance of cultures and economic specializations formed in the Middle East over the centuries. The collapse of the Ottoman regional power and expansion of the Western states destroyed the regional identity. The Western model of organization of social and political relations and external control by France and England were imposed on the Middle East peoples.

The uniqueness of the regional space of the Middle East lies in the fact that the energy of the so-called “axial time” accumulated there, at the intersection of the world religions. As noted by the German historian K. Jaspers in his work The Origins of History and its Purpose, this is a turning point in the history of mankind, and according to A. P. Nazaretyan “anthropogenic crises [14]” start to finish in breakthroughs in the new eras. Moreover, the symbols of such “breakthroughs” can be specific personalities, such as Alexander the Great or the first agnostics philosophers and scientists, who have actually formed a pre-modern human worldview. In that era, began to develop a common understanding of good and evil, of the individual as a sovereign carrier of moral choice and reflexive form of individual self-control – conscience as an alternative to the previously dominant religious “fear of God” [5].

This is literally really the Axis around which all of humanity revolves from some time ago. The axis of history gathers around itself and includes in the orbit of its influence a number of civilizations and world centers. As K. Jaspers wrote in his book [6], “the novelty which arose in that era in the three mentioned cultures boiled down to the fact that the man became aware of life as a whole, of himself and his boundaries. The horror of the world and his own helplessness opened before him. Standing over the precipice, he raised radical questions, demanded liberation and salvation. Being aware of his boundaries, he set himself the highest goals, learned the absolute in the depths of his self-consciousness and in the clarity of the transcendental world. All that happened through reflection. The consciousness became aware of the consciousness, thought made thinking its object. The spiritual struggle began during which everyone tried to convince the other telling the other of his goals, justifications and experience. Discussions, formation of various parties, the splitting of the spiritual sphere, which in the inconsistency of its parts retained their interdependence - all that gave rise to the anxiety and movement bordering the spiritual chaos [6. P. 30]”.

The Mediterranean-Middle East regional system is an entity naturally distinguished from other communities by its historical and social culture and its place in the global evolution. At the same time, the algorithm of formation of most regional communities to a certain extent was universal and, if you do not focus on specific features, was common to all geosocial regional spaces [19. P. 131-140]. Focal ancient civilizations (or foci and poles of emerging large regional civilizations), expanding their influence and binding external migrations, created a very dynamic system of the global level of pair categories “we or other”/ “friend or foe”. In the Middle East, this was expressed in the primary relationship in time between “indigenous” and “newcomers” [9. P. 124-178], that is those who came to this region earlier and who came later.

That mobile structure formed the contours of the region and to some extent their primary relations. Directly as a regional geosocial integrity, the Middle East arose in the course of Arab conquests, Islamization and formation of the Arab Caliphate, but as a result of the Mongol invasion in the second half of the XIII century the Caliphate fell. Although the Mongols left, the Arab world of the Middle East disintegrated, fell into a deep crisis and the Arab tribes were conquered by the Turkic-speaking Ottoman Empire [13]. Later on, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it experienced a state of extreme frustration, because hopes for independent development were not justified. The winners of the First World War “divided” the Arabs. The Muslim world, which once owned half of Europe, began to feel cheated and cornered.

During the cold war period, the Muslim world ceased to be self-sufficient. Geopolitical dependence on the West and penetration of the Western mass culture in the civilization of the East caused a wide range of reactions: from the attempts to restructure in the European manner or to find a way out in the socialist orientation to the attempts to completely isolate and be tinned. Often, the reaction is internally contradictory in character from complete ideological rejection to the willing borrowing of technical and social mechanisms. In any case, any reaction continues to have a complex of inferiority and resentment, a sense of threat to their cultural identity and attempts to take revenge and win back the previous dominant position. It gives rise to extremist mood and aggression towards the outside world [8. P. 23-26].

Instead of the hopes for a revival, the Arabs came under the control of France and England. After the Second World War, attempts to resolve the Arab identity crisis in pan-Arabism and socialist orientation failed. And the stake on the nationalist autocracy of artificially created Arab states [1] has led to civil wars. In all Arab countries, tribal, clan and religious structures, to which social groups belonged, have become the main units of self-identification of the population. The population is beginning to return to its historical roots, the loyalty of the residents began to be transferred from the shattered and failed national states to their traditional confessional community [13]. In this regard, the states and their borders have lost their former importance. The centers of solidarity and conflict – especially in Iraq and Syria – have moved from the level of the state to the level of the primary local religious community – Sunnis, Shiites or alawites, etc.

Currently, the Middle East is again a place of fierce rivalry between Russia and the United States affecting the processes of restructuring of the neighboring large Eurasian region.

REFERENCES:

1. Arabskij nacionalizm ili arabskie nacionalizmy: doktrina, jetnonim, varianty diskursa. Nacionalizm v mirovoj istorii [Arab nationalism or Arab nationalisms: doctrine, ethnonim, variants of the discourse. Nationalism in the world history]. Мoscow: Institute of ethnology and anthropology RAS, 2007 (In Russ.).

2. Аyupova Z.К., Kusainov D.U. Eshhe raz ob osnovnyh mezhdunarodno-pravovyh principah samoopredelenija nacij [Once again on the main international and legal principles of self-determination of the nations] // Eurasian Union: issues of international relations. – 2018. № 1 (In Russ.).

3. Besson I. Identity crises as a paradigm of Middle Eastern conflictuality [Identity crises as a paradigm of Middle Eastern conflictuality. Interrn]. Social science j. Paris, N.Y., 1991 (In Russ.).

4. Gomayunov S. Ot istorii sinergetiki k sinergetike istorii [From the history of synergetics to the synergy of history] // Social Sciences and modernity. – 1994. № 2 (In Russ.).

5. Erokhina L.D., Erokhin А.К. and others. Filosofija. [Philosophy]. Collective of authors // http://abc.vvsu.ru/Books/krl_filosofija/page0022.asp (In Russ.).

6. Jaspers K. Istoki istorii i ee cel'. INION. [The Origins of History and its Purpose. INION]. Мoscow, 1991. Issue 1 (In Russ.).

7. Нuntington S. The Clash of Civilizations? // Foreign Affairs. Summer.

8. Karpovich О.G. Politika obespechenija nacional'noj bezopasnosti gosudarstva [National security policy of the state] // Constitutional and municipal law. – 2012. № 2 (In Russ.).

9. Lamberg-Karlovsky К., Sablov G. Drevnie civilizacii. Blizhnij Vostok i Mezoamerika [Ancient civilizations. The Middle East and MezoAmerica]. Мoscow, 1992 (In Russ.).

10. Lebedeva М.L. Metodologija regional'nyh issledovanij politicheskogo prostranstva [Methodology of regional research of political space] // Issues of politology. – 2018. № 4 (In Russ.).

11. Мedvedev N.P. Politicheskaja regionalistika [Political regionalistics]. Мoscow, 2005 (In Russ.).

12. Medvedev N.P., Glebov V.A., Madatov A.S. To the Question of Typologization of the Russian Regions [To the Question of Typologization of the Russian Regions] // “Political Science Issues”. Volume 8, Issue 1 (29), 2018 (In Russ.).

13. Mirskiy G. Krovavyj haos na Arabskom Vostoke. Islamskie strany v poiskah istoricheskogo puti [Bloody mess in the Arab East. Islamic countries in the search of historic path] // Nezavisimaya Gazetta. 21.11.2014.

14. Nazaretyan А.P. Civilizacionnye krizisy v kontekste Universal'noj istorii (Sinergetika – psihologija – prognozirovanie) [Civilizational crises in the context of universal history (Synergy – psychology – forecasting)]. Moscow, 2004 (In Russ.).

15. Nazaretyan А.P. Vektory istoricheskoj jevoljucii [Vectors of historical evolution] // Social sciences and modernity. – 1999. № 2 (In Russ.).

16. Neimark M.A. Kul'tura i nacional'naja bezopasnost' Rossii. Bremja peremen [Culture and national security of Russia. Burden of change] // Bulletin of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Russia and the World. 2014. № 2 (2) (In Russ.).

17. Pryakhin V.F. Recenzija na stat'ju Z.K. Ajupovoj i D.U. Kusainova «Eshhe raz ob osnovnyh mezhdunarodno-pravovyh principah samoopredelenija nacij» [Review of the article by Аyupova Z.К., Kusainov D.U. Once again on the main international and legal principles of self-determination of the Nations] // Eurasian Union: issues of international relations. 2018 (In Russ.).

18. Pyzh V.V., Кorostelev S.V. Uchet geopoliticheskih faktorov v processe vybora sposobov razgranichenija morskih prostranstv v Arktike [The consideration of geopolitical factors in the process of selecting methods of delimitation of maritime spaces in the Arctic] // Issues of National and Federative Relations. 2018. № 2 (In Russ.).

19. Sadokhin А.P. Jetnologija [Ethnology]. Moscow, 2008 (In Russ.).

20. Zadokhin А.G. Evropejskie istoki arabo-izrail'skogo konflikta [European origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict] // Scientific and analytical Journal Obozrevatel – Observer. 2013. № 11 (In Russ.).

21. Zadokhin A.G. Samoopredelenie narodov i territorial'naja celostnost' gosudarstv: kategorii, problemy, perspektivy [Self-determination of peoples and territorial integrity of states: categories, problems, prospects] // Scientific and analytical journal Obosrevatel-Observer. 2011. № 5 (256) (In Russ.).

BOLTENKOVA L.F., RYABOVA E.I. Territory of the Russian Principalities in the IX-XII Centuries and the Today Importance of this Issue

DOI 10.35775/PSI.2019.31.1.001

L.F. BOLTENKOVA Doctor of Sciences (law), Professor at the Institute of public administration and management, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration Moscow, Russia

Е.I. RYABOVA Candidate of Sciences, Assistant Professor at the Academy of Labour and Social Relations in the city Sevastopol, Sevastopol, Russia

TERRITORY OF THE RUSSIAN PRINCIPALITIES IN THE IX-XII CENTURIES AND THE TODAY IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE

On the basis of historical sources and scientific literature the article describes the territory of Russian principalities in the IX-XII centuries (the Old Russian state.) It is shown that in the IX-XII centuries Ukraine as a state did not exist and the Moscow Principality gained strength and became the spiritual and political center of Russia. As the center of Russia, Moscow then provided all assistance to those who formed the Ukrainian state. The part of the Ukrainian political elite is acting counter-historically when it denies the Russianness of their territorial roots.

Key words: state, Russianness, statehood, law, history, politics.

It is historically incorrect to assert, as it often happens, that the Kiev princes in the IX-X centuries collected Russian lands. Russ came from the North-West in small numbers. They formed the military and political elite first in Novgorod, then in Kiev. Other lands lived "on their own" and they were not Russians. For example, the land of the Drevlyans, the land of the Nords, the land of the Vyatichi, the land of Krivichi, the land of Radimichi, etc. There were princes everywhere. Russian princes from Kiev had to fight for power in other lands.

Having established their power in one way or another, they declared such land Russian. That is, when discussing that period, we are not talking about unification of Russian lands, but about the spread of Russian power territorially. In the West, the spread of that power was stopped by poles and other West Slavic and non-Slavic tribes (nationalities). Moreover, they were ready to establish their own power in Kiev. So, naturally, the indigineous tribes made their choice in favour of the Eastern vector of development. That choice was made voluntarily by the Kievan princes and it was strategically correct.

Before showing what areas have become Russian principalities, it is necessary to name the tribes living in the space of the future old Russian state. The following researchers studied the problem: M.V. Lomonosov, N.M. Karamzin, V.O. Klyuchevsky, N.I. Kostomarov, Yu.A. Limonov, A.E. Presnyakov, G.V. Vernadsky, V.T. Pachuco, M.N. Tikhomirov, D.A. Chwolson, A.N. Nasonov, A.V. Cherepnin, L.N. Gumilev, N.S. Kozlov, V.I. Kozlov, M.N. Gromov, A.A. Novoselsky, D.D. Pogorski, L.F. Boltenkova and other.

It is clear from various sources, that in its heyday the Ancient Russia united in its composition 22 non-Slavic peoples, who were at different levels of social development, including: Ugro-Finnish, Baltic and Turkic tribes [6]. Among the Slavic tribes there were: Polyane, Drevlyane, Radimichi, Krivichi, Ulichi, Nords, Volhynians, Tivertsy, Dregovichi, Buzhans, White Croats, Polotsk, Slovene (s) and Vyatichi [7. P. 342; 8. P. 33-34, 39].

The picture of the placement of the Eastern Slavs on the East European Plain was vividly painted by an ancient Russian chronicler Nestor at the end of the 11th-early 12th century, who described the events that had taken place nearly three hundred years before him. Most of the information of the ancient Russian chronicles was confirmed by both other written and archaeological sources. On the right bank in the middle reaches of the Dnieper river lived Polyane and Kiev was the centre of their land; Drevlyane lived to the North and West of the Polyane, between the rivers Ros and Pripyat, Iskorosten was the center of their land; Dregovichi lived to the north of Polyane and Drevlyane, on the left bank of the river Pripyat; Bougains and Volhynians lived to the west of Polyane, along the upper course of the Southern Bug; Ulichi and Tivertsi lived further to the south-west, in the Dniester basin; White Croats lived in Transcarpathia; Northerners inhabited the left bank of the river Dnieper, the basins of the rivers Suly, Seym and Desna, reaching in the east to the river North Donets; Radimichi lived to the north of Northerners, between the upper reaches of the Dnieper and Sozha; Krivichi lived north of Radimichi, in the the upper reaches of the Volga, Dnieper and Dvina, with the center in Smolensk; Polochans inhabited the basin of the Western Dvina along the river Polote; Slovene lived in the area of Lake Ilmen; and finally, Vyatichi lived in the very east of the region occupied by the Eastern Slavs, inhabiting the basin of the upper and middle Oka and Moskva River.

Analyzing the territory inhabited by the Slavs, who then formed the Old Russian state, L. F. Boltenkova writes that “there are no Rus among the listed tribes and their territories [5. P. 36].” In this case, there is no need to prove in detail how “Rus came” to the Slavs or how Rus, Russians turned out among the Slavs. This question has been studied by different sciences for centuries. We are impressed by M.V. Lomonosov’s the position, who considered it true that Novgorodians in alliance with Chud and Kriviches invited Ros Varyags to rule them. Varyags are not an ethnos. The chronicle clarifies that the word “Varyag” has a general meaning and applies to anyone who came from the Baltic shores or, as Lomonosov put it, the Varangian shores. These were: the Swedes, the Danes, the Norse, the Goths, the Angles and the Rus (Ros). V.O. Klyuchevsky believed that “our” Varyags were armed merchants and Western Varyags were pirates or coastal robbers. V.O. Klyuchevsky described it in the following way: “Traces in the language and in the ancient tradition point out to this character of our Varyags. In the regional Russian lexicon, the Varyag (put in bold by V.O.K.) is a peddler, a petty trader and to varyagigate (put in bold by V.O.K.) means to engage in bargaining. It is curious that when a non-commercial armed Varyag needed to hide his identity, he pretended to be a merchant coming from Russia or going to Russia [11. P. 27].”

As for the Varyags and Rus, Solovyov S.M. wrote: “It remains for us to say a few words about the meaning of the names – the Varyags and Rus. Comparing various scientific interpretations, one can deduce the correct conclusion that the word Varyags meant groups of people, who left their homeland and were forced to seek fortune on the seas or in alien countries; that word, apparently, was formed in the West, among the Germanic tribes; in the east, the tribes of Slavs, Finns, Greeks and Arabs had the same common name for such squads, it was Rus, meaning, as you can see, seafarers coming on ships by sea, entering rivers inland of countries living along the coast of the sea. Let us add here that the name “Rus” was much more common in the south than in the north, and that, in all likelihood, Ros was known on the shores of the Black Sea before the first half of the ninth century, before the arrival of Rurik and his brothers. Such, in our opinion, are the most probable conclusions that can be obtained from the numerous discussions about the Varyags and Russia [17. P. 119].”

We will not go into details about the northern or southern location of the Varyags-Rus. In fact, today it is clear from various sources that the Varyags – Rus moved from the North to the South, but in the South they were practically always present.

So, Lomonosov, Klyuchevsky, Soloviev did not refute the theory of the arrival in Novgorod, Beloozero, Izborsk of the Varyags-Rus (Ros): Rurik, Sineus and Truvor under agreement. This happened in the year 862. The date is celebrated today as the beginning of Russian statehood. In fact, yes, it was the beginning of Russian statehood. But it is difficult to respond positively to the question: whether the people of Novgorod, the Kryvichi and Chud, that is, the federative tribes, who invited the Varyags-Rus, recognized themselves as Russians during the times of Rurik. On this issue, there is a point of view that the people of Novgorod of the period of Ancient Russia did not call themselves Russians, although they participated in “common life”, but sought to preserve their independence [5. P. 53-67].

Facts confirming this position are the uprisings, first against Rurik, then against Kiev, the establishment of a republican form of government, a federal structure, and subsequent wars with Moscow for independence. Nevertheless, there are historical grounds for considering Novgorod an integral part of the Old Russian state. That is, the Novgorod land is a part of the Old Russian state. It should only be clarified that contemporaries considered Novgorod to be “external Rus”, lying to the north of “internal Rus,” the Russian land. This view belongs to Constantine Bagryanorodny [4. P. 8-10]. Let's enumerate other parts of the Old Russian state.

Kiev land, which the Soviet (including Ukrainian) scientists considered the political and territorial core of the Old Russian state, did not develop, in their opinion, into a separate principality. That land was considered the common dynastic heritage of the ancient Russian princely family [18. P. 5].

“Russian land” between Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl constituted the territory of Kiev land. Initially (until the XI century), Chernigov and Pereyaslavl were ruled from Kiev, they did not have their own princes. In the XII-XIII centuries, Kiev land was identified with the “Russian land,” but geographically they did not coincide. The main possessions of Kiev were located on the right bank of the Dnieper, including the Drevlyane land and the land of the Dregovichi. The western borders of the Kiev land were located along the Western Bug river line, the southern borders were on the Ros river and the upper course of the Southern Bug [14. P. 30-33]. At the time of Vladimir Monomakh, Vyatka, Volyn, Turov, and Pereyaslavl were parts of the Kiev Grand Throne. In a word, the composition of the grand-ducal possessions changed with a tendency to decrease in size. Specifically, the borders of the Kiev land were described by: A.N. Nasonov, P.P. Tolochko (in Ukrainian), M.V. Dovnyar-Zapolsky, M.N. Tikhomirov, N. Molchanovsky, N.P. Dashkevich, V.I. Dovzhenok, A. Dobrovolsky (in Ukrainian), O.V. Bodyansky (in Ukrainian), A.T. Smilenko (in Ukrainian) and others. Among the authors there are not only Soviet, but also authors of the period of the Empire.

It should be emphasized that the borders of the Kiev land have been scrupulously investigated and maps have been drawn up.

Chernigov principality. This principality and its territory were the objects of research by V.N. Tatishchev, K.M. Borozdin, M.P. Pogodin, M.E. Markov, A.K. Zaitsev, D.Ya. Samokvasov, P.V. Golubovsky, B.A. Rybakov and others. The state territory of the Chernigov principality was formed depending on the general processes of the formation of the Old Russian state. The core of the territory of that principality were the lands of ethnic Nords (Slavs), who acquired the “Polyane” ethnographic appearance in the X-XII centuries. At the end of the ninth century (specifically, in 884) the Nords were still mentioned in Chronicals. In that year, the great Prince of Kiev Oleg laid a “light” tribute on the Nords.

Olga strengthened the statehood of the Nords by establishing a system of graveyards and tributes. Chernigov, as a state entity, is mentioned in the Chronicals in 1024 and in second place after Kiev. But in fact, Chernigov was known in history before that, already in the Russian Treaties with Byzantium of 907 and 945. The specific issue of the boundaries of the Chernigov principality is studied in the works of the above authors, as well as A.A. Spitsyn, I.I. Lyapushkin, I.P. Rusanov, N.I. Nadezhdin, N.V. Kholostenko.

Pereyaslav principality. This principality was the largest and most important (along with Kiev and Chernigov) within the Old Russian state. It occupied the forest-steppe zone on the left bank of the Dnieper. The ethnic composition of the principality was not simple, but mostly included Nords and Polyane. The Nords mostly settled in the eastern part and far to the south, and Polyane – mostly in the western. Nords were incorporated into the Old Russian state at the end of the 9th century by Prince Oleg. In the year 884, there is a record in the Chronicle: “Oleg went on the Nords and won a victory over them and imposed a light tribute on them ...”.

But, as noted above, Nortds were also part of the Chernigov principality, that is, we would say now that Nords were a divided ethnic group. The boundaries of the Nords’ lands were delineated by researchers on the basis of archaeological data [13. P. 217]. We would like to single out one detail: Pereyaslavl appeared on the land of Polyans. Do not forget that Kiev also appeared on their land.

Polotsk land. It should be stressed primarily that the Polotsk land was the first to separate from the Old Russian state, that is, it began the process of disintegration of that state. Polotsk land was studied by I.A. Garizhsky (1819), K.A. Govorsky (1853), A. Yelsky, M. Brodovich, M.V. Dovnar-Zapolsky, V.E. Danilevich, L.V. Alekseeva and others. The term “Polotsk land” was taken by the researchers from the Chronicle. As indicated by L. V. Alekseev, the emergence of the term “Polotsk-Minsk land” on the initiative of researcher V.I. Pichéty is wrong and does not correspond to the historical documents [1. P. 203]. Polotsk land is Northern Belarus. Geographically, it is the Pridvinskaya lowland, from Orsha to Minsk. The main waterway is the Western Dvina. The ethnic nature of the Polotsk land has not yet been precisely determined. It is believed in the sources that the Slavic tribe Krivichi arrived to this land not earlier than the VIIth century [2].

Faced with the Dregovichi, who had settled in the lands south of Minsk, Borisov and Drutsk, the Krivichi stopped. The city of Polotsk was built on the right bank of the Polota, near its mouth. A tribute to the prince flowed here. It is known that the princes of Polotsk fought Novgorod for the “border” lands. It should be noted that the Polotsk princes stood out among others in their desire for independence both from Kiev and anyone else. However, in the first half of the XIII century, the weakened Polotsk land was subordinated to Lithuania. That is, the ancient Russian period of the Polotsk land ended in the middle of the XIIIth century.

Smolensk land. According to archaeologists and historians, the core of the Smolensk land was the branch of the Krivichi, who settled in the upper reaches of the Western Dvina, the Dnieper and the Volga. They are called: “Smolensk Krivichi” or “Dnieper Krivichi” [16. P. 240-242]. Krivichy and their history were studied by: N.I. Nadezhdin, M.P. Pogodin, I.D. Belyaev, M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov, M.K. Lyubavsky, P.V. Golubovsky, N.P. Barsov, I.M. Krasnoperov, V.V. Sedov, Ya.V. Stankevich, N.N. Usachev and others.

The science concluded that the political territory of the Smolensk land in the XII century coincided with the Krivitch ethnographic land. It is believed that the Krivichy assimilated the Balts, who had lived since antiquity. It is known from history that Oleg left Novgorod, accompanied by Krivichy, allies of Novgorod, as a part of his squad. He arrived in Smolensk, left his deputy there and moved on (then occupied Kiev). That is, Smolensk’s dependence on Oleg came earlier than he arrived in Kiev. Having occupied Kiev, he became the Grand Duke, believing that Novgorod and Smolensk were already in his submission. The beginning of the political isolation of Smolensk from Kiev was laid around 1125-1127, although the prince at that time was the grandson of the Kiev Prince Vladimir Monomakh. In 1137, Rostislav, the grandson of Vladimir Monomakh, established a local bishop in Smolensk [10]. The principality of Smolensk rises and begins to play a significant role in the common Russian affairs. In the middle of the XII century, Smolensk territory was delineated in the boundaries between the Polotsk land (from the headwaters of the Lovat to the mouth of the Toropa river and further to Orsha). In the south-west, the border point was Luchin, in the east – to the middle course of the Bolva river. In the northeast – the upper reaches of the Ugra and to the headwaters of the Moscow river, it wedged between the rivers Moskva and Volga. In the north, the border rose from Rzhev to Lake Seliger [16. P. 257].

Polovtsy land. The fates of Polovtsy and Russians merged at the beginning of the XI century. It was a complex, controversial, tragic and at the same time a close-alliance interrelation of nationalities. P. V. Golubovsky devoted much time to the study of 350 years of life of these nationalities. In 1883, his work “Pechenegs, Turks and Polovtsy before the Tatar invasion” was published. In 1889, he published a book “Polovtsy in Hungary” [15. P. 260]. The history of the Polovtsy in the context of the Old Russian state was studied by: D.A. Rasovsky, B.D. Grekov, M.N. Tikhomirov, A.N. Nasonov, I. Berezin, P.M. Melioransky, V.A. Parkhomenko, A.I. Popov and others. Pletneva S.A. believes that the history of the Polovtsy has been studied quite fully [16. P. 257].

The borders of the Polovtsy land were unstable: they were nomads, attacked the settled population, robbed, burned, and could remain in the conquered territory or go to other places. The task of the Russians was to ensure their own security. But gradually, gaining strength, the Russian princes began to oust the Polovtsy or to become related with a part of them. Some major victories over the Polovtsy are mentioned in “The Legend of Igor's Regiment”. Under the blows of the Russian princes, part of the Polovtsy moved to Byzantine, part to Georgia. Z. V. Anchabadze wrote a serious work about Polovtsy in the North Caucasus [3]. In the late 90s of the XII th century, skirmishes between Polovtsy and Russians almost ceased. On the contrary, Polovtsy participated in the political life of Russia. However, such participation was selective. For example, when the principality of Galicia-Volyn was the scene of fratricidal wars, Polovtsy together with Russian princes went there in 1202, 1208, 1226 and 1235, that is, almost until the arrival of the Mongol-Tatars.

The Polovtsy participated in the campaign of Izyaslav against Kiev in 1234. The Polovtsy, as well as the Russians, were the object of the Tatar conquests. Moreover, they fled, dissolving in the Russian territories of the Old Russian state. In short, for about 200 years the Polovtsy were in close relations with Russia, exerting mutual influence on each other, but with the advantage of Russia.

Galitsko-Volyn lands. The history of these lands is full of dramatic changes. In ancient times, Dulebsky tribal alliance existed here, and in the 6th century AD that union was broken by avars. Volyn, a former tribal union center, faded and Vladimir Volyn rose. A rich layer of boyars was formed, the following cities grew: Peremyshl, Danilov, Lutsk, Terebovl, Lviv, Cherven, Kholm, Berestye, Drogichin. In the XII century, Galich rose. The Galician principality was formed on the lands of the Slavs: White Croats, Tivertsy, Ulichi. In the XII-XIII centuries, Prince Roman Mstislavich Volynsky united the Galician land and Volyn. This principality existed until the XIV century, having survived the Tatar-Mongol invasion. Relations between Kiev and Galicia-Volyn principality were complex. Having become part of the Old Russian state in the Xth century, these south-western lands demonstrated a tendency to separation already from the XIth century. The rich local nobility did not want to submit to Kiev. On this basis, there were constant “external” and internal conflicts. Some princes replaced others, but there was no peace. The Principality fell into districts: Galitsky, Zvenigorod and Vladimir. This enabled Hungary (King Andrew) to occupy the Western Russian lands. Prince Daniel took the royal title from Pope Innocent IV. The process of catholization began. After the death of Daniel (in 1264), the Galician-Volyn principality disintegrated into four parts. In this form, in the XIV century Galicia was captured by Poland, and Volyn – by Lithuania. After the Union of Lublin (1569), the Galician and Volyn lands became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Vladimir-Suzdal principality. The territory of this principality is between the river Oka and the upper reaches of the Volga. The original name of the principality is Rostov-Suzdal because of the ancient cities – Rostov and Suzdal. By decision of the feudal congress in 1097 Suzdal land came into the possession of Vladimir Monomakh. He has transferred this land to the management of his son Yuri Dolgoruky (1125-1157), who became the first prince independent from Kiev. Note that his independence was guaranteed by his father, Vladimir Monomakh. Yuri Dolgoruky, as you know, built Moscow, which later became the center of an independent Moscow principality. The son of Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrew Bogolyubsky did not seek to be in Kiev, unlike his father, who for a few years was the Great Prince in Kiev and died there. Andrei Bogolyubsky transferred the capital of “his” principality to Vladimir. From history it is clear that Kiev – Suzdal – Vladimir – Moscow are in a historically vital relationship, that is, in essence, they are one family. But, as you know, large families tend to live apart, “living in their own homes – apartments,” but it is impossible to tear out their blood and kinship ties, even if the family members have leave for different countries.

The land-principalities considered above, except for Novgorod, which was a republic, were not the only ones in the composition of the Old Russian state. Other lands were less state-organized, but they also created the history of the Old Russian state. Specific tribes, tribal alliances have been named above. Let’s name the lands: Turov-Pinsk, Murom and Tmutarakan.

The foregoing, based on the analysis of various sources, suggests that Ukraine did not exist as a state in the period from the 9th to the 14th centuries. Moscow principality was gaining momentum at the period. O. I. Chistyakov and I. D. Martysevich wrote that “The ancient Russian state did not coincide with the present-day Ukraine either in territory or in population, they have only one common trait – their capital – Kiev. One can’t talk about specifically Ukrainian culture, language, etc in the IXth and even in the XIIth centuries [9. P. 26].”

Although the further history of a part of the Russian lands intersects with the history of Ukraine (it is not the subject of this article), but we specifically note that without the Moscow principality, the Russian state, the Russian empire or the USSR, the Ukrainian statehood would not have taken place, the territorial basis of which contains the Russian principalities of the IXthe to the XII centuries.

With regard to the modern value of the territorial structure of the Old Russian state, the relevance of the issue we see in the events taking place in Ukraine. Part of the political elite inadequately perceives the territorial basis of the Ukrainian statehood. This problem can be resolved, if we turn to the history of the formation of Ukraine. Since modern Ukrainian political figures, on the one hand, consider Old Russian princes and princesses as “their own”, and on the other hand, they are trying to prove in every way that they are not Russians, but Ukrainians, there is a doubt about the legality of historical “succession”. The Ukrainian political elite by deniaing their “Russianness” put themselve outside the historical roots, creating difficulties for themselves and the people.

In reality, while remaining Ukrainians, it is possible to maintain a kinship with the Russians.

REFERENCES:

1. Alekseev L.V. Polockaja zemlja [Polotsk land] // Old Russian principalities of the X-XIII centuries. Moscow, 1975 (In Russ.).

2. Alekseev L.V. Arheologicheskie pamjatniki jepohi zheleza v srednem techenii Zapadnoj Dviny [Archaeological sites of the Iron Age in the middle reaches of the Western Dvina]. – Proceedings of the Baltic Expedition. Moscow, 1959. Vo l. 1 (In Russ.).

3. Anchabadze Z.V. Kipchaki Severnogo Kavkaza po dannym gruzinskih letopisej XI-XIV vv. [Kipchaks of the North Caucasus according to the Georgian chronicles of the XI-XIV centuries] // Materials of the session on the problem of the origin of the Balkar and Karachai peoples. Nalchik, 1960 (In Russ.).

4. Bagryanorodny C. Ob upravlenii gosudarstvom [On the state management] // Izvestiya GAIMK. Moscow-Leningrad, 1934. Vol. 91 (In Russ.).

5. Boltenkova L.F. Stanovlenie i razvitie rossijskogo mnogonacional'nogo gosudarstva (VI v. – nastojashhee vremja) [Formation and development of the Russian multinational state (from the VI century to the present time)]. In five books. Book 1. The formation and development of the Russian Empire as a common house of different ethnic groups. Moscow, 2011 (In Russ.).

6. Istorija krest'janstva SSSR [The history of the USSR peasantry]. Moscow, 1990. Vol. 2 (In Russ.).

7. History of the USSR from ancient times to the present day In two series. In twelve volumes. First episode. Moscow: "Science"; 1966. Vol. 1 (In Russ.).

8. History of State and Law of the USSR: a textbook. Part 1 / Ed. Yu.P. Titov. Moscow: Legal. lit.; 1988 (In Russ.).

9. Istorija SSSR s drevnejshih vremen do nashih dnej. V dvuh serijah. V dvenadcati tomah. Pervaja serija [History of State and Law of the USSR. – Part 1] / Ed. O.I. Chistyakova, I.D. Martysevich. Moscow: MSU, 1985 (In Russ.).

10. Kashprovsky E.I. Uchrezhdenie Smolenskoj episkopii [The establishment of the Smolensk bishopric]. Kiev, 1896 (In Russ.).

11. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russkaja istorija [Russian history]. Moscow: Eksmo; 2009 (In Russ.).

12. Kuchera M.P. Perejaslavskoe knjazhestvo [Pereyaslavl princedom] // Ancient princedoms of X-XIII centuries. Moscow: "Science", 1975 (In Russ.).

13. Lyapushkin I.I. Dneprovskoe lesostepnoe levoberezh'e v jepohu zheleza [Dnieper forest-steppe left bank in the iron age]. Moscow-Leningrad, 1961. No. 104 (In Russ.).

14. Nasonov A.N. «Russkaja zemlja» i obrazovanie territorii Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva [“Russian land” and the formation of the territory of the Old Russian state]. Moscow, 1951 (In Russ.).

15. Pletnev S.A. Drevnerusskie knjazhestva X-XIII vv. [Old Russian principalities of the X-XIII centuries]. Moscow, 1975 (In Russ.).

16. Sedov V.V. Smolenskaja zemlja [Smolensk land] // Old Russian principalities X-XIII centuries. Moscow, 1975 (In Russ.).

17. Soloviev S.M. Sochinenija. Kn. 1. Istorija Rossii s drevnejshih vremen [Collected works – Book1. The history of Russia since ancient times]. Moscow, 1988. Vol. 1-2 (In Russ.).

18. Tolochko P.P. Kievskaja zemlja [Kiev land] // Old Russian principalities of the X-XIII centuries. Moscow: "Science"; 1975 (In Russ.).