ПЕРСПЕКТИВНІСТЬ ГЕОЕКОНОМІЧНИХ ТРАНСФОРМАЦІЙ В КОНТЕКСТІ ІСНУЮЧИХ ТА ПОТЕЦІЙНИХ ГЛОБАЛЬНИХ ПРОЕКТІВ

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problem of the formation of a complex contradictory postglobal world, where traditional centers of power are losing their own potential, and new ones are only undergoing formation, acquiring, with the exception of the Chinese and Islamic projects, only regional significance so far. In this context, it has been determined that the key driving factor for the destruction of the global environment is the accumulated contradictions pushing the institutionalized participants to conflicts and clashes. It is noted that the latter will not have the character of traditional wars, because their main goals contradict modern pragmatism and practicality in the process of realization of national economic interests in the global burden. It is shown that the only option for the states, which do not have, do not want or cannot create their own regional or global centers of influence, is deglobalization with the concentration of efforts on supporting the domestic economic complex and implementation of the self-sufficiency strategy, which guarantees the preservation of economic sovereignty and the possibility of a relatively stable existence in the long run. The article shows that in this regard it is necessary to provide maximum support to the national corporate sector, eliminate participation in dubious and costly global collective projects, increase funding for innovation-oriented sectors of the economy and to organize an effective vertical of power and governance. At the same time, it is stated that those economic centers that are able to ensure regional influence (Brazil, India, Turkey, Iran) today, due to their involvement in the implementation of such projects, feel significant difficulties and economic problems. This is due to the need to bear the economic and political costs of expansionism and to guarantee stability and influence in the region. The article stresses the necessity to reorient key state strategies in favor of self elaborated design of national economic complexes and resource findings, making the transition to the deglobalization costful and risky.