GLOBAL GEOPOLITICAL CHAOS (II) – RUSSIAN-AMERICAN HURRICANE OVER EUROPE

Tourism is among the business directions sustaining huge losses in the war. The approaches to the organization of the tourism business have changed completely since the beginning of the large-scale russian troops’ invasion of Ukraine as it is much dependent on the security component of visitors both during the transfer and when visiting tourist attractions, routes, and other locations that provide certain services of the common tourist basket. Currently, a significant share of travel companies is closed, and some of them have reoriented their activities or act as volunteers. Some requests for recreation began emerging with the onset of the summer season, namely in the cities of safer parts of the country – western regions and Carpathians. So tourism industry continues to function even in martial law since traveling and moving around the country are not forbidden. The article addresses the problems of Ukraine’s tourism industry in martial law and analyzes the dynamics of tourism load on the tourist product producers (travel operators and travel agents) in the 2000-2019 period, which is characterized for Ukraine by hostilities, the annexation of Crimea, occupation of some parts of Donetska and Luhanska oblasts, and introduction of visa-free regimen with European countries. The need to develop new marketing tools to improve the tourism industry competitiveness in regions and territorial communities that should be stipulated at the stage of their spatial and economic planning is emphasized. The article offers the tourism cluster scheme based on a regional (territorial) approach using the entities’ functional integrated links (authorities, businesses, individuals) that consolidate and coordinate the complex systemic management of the tourism industry in the region. Some aspects of Ukraine’s Recovery Plan offered by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine at the Ukraine Recovery Conference held on July 4, 2022, in Lugano (Switzerland) regarding the tourism industry development projects are addressed.

While the fundamental nature of warfare does not change, new models and tactics will continuously be developed as it always involves a conflict of will and interests, violence, resistance, political manoeuvring or deception. The character of war will continue to evolve and become more common than ever as rival parties engage in activities outside the usual peace‑crisis‑conflict dynamic. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which started with the annexation of Crimea and support for the separatist movements in the two eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, turned into a direct full‑scale military attack on the entire country as of 24 II 2022. Due to these developments, how the new operation concept, which the NATO alliance has begun to design for the coming years, will be affected, has gained importance. NATO’s military supremacy is under threat as Russia actively readapts its more aggressive military stances, as seen in the example of its invasion of Ukraine. Alliance Members are subject to constant attacks today, even under traditional warfare thresholds. Conflicts that spread to NATO Partner countries and even regions close to the alliance borders also risk a significant spread to Allied territory. The NATO alliance must be ready for this. This research presents critical takeaways from work guiding future capability development. It offers recommendations from a new perspective so that NATO can continue to defend and protect the interests and values of its members.

The article is devoted to an analysis of the development of the Russian machine tool industry before and after Russia’ invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. It reviews the history of the industry in the USSR, its collapse in the 1990s and stabilisation in the early 2000s. Prior to Russian’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the imposition of sanctions by Western countries the government had already adopted policies to secure a revival of the industry on a more independent basis and some success was achieved. After 2014 the government’s efforts to restore the industry intensified and the scale of output of metal cutting machine tools steadily increased. However, there was still a significant dependence on imports, especially of the most advanced types of equipment. After the start of the war in 2022 sanctions were rapidly intensified and more countries participated. Quite rapidly, imports from Western countries were replaced by imports from China and other non-sanctioning countries. The development of the domestic industry received new priority and output increased. By the end of 2023 the situation had to some extent stabilised. Notwithstanding sanctions, the Russian defence industry has been able to acquire the machine tools it needs, although not always of the highest quality.

This essay explores the regional rivalry between Russia and Turkey from the former’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 to its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The main argument is that Russia and Turkey have maintained a managed regional rivalry. The two have continuously supported opposing sides in regional conflict theatres. At the same time, Russia and Turkey have learned to accommodate the interests and spheres of influence of each other and cooperate through various bilateral mechanisms. The essay concludes that a form of managed regional rivalry will continue to shape Russian–Turkish relations in Eurasia in the foreseeable future.

The security-insecurity paradox in a geopolitical struggle between Russia and its ex-territory; Ukraine along with the politics of the influences between great powers has made the Russian invasion a reality. Russian intervention in its periphery in February 2022 has sent shockwaves to the European Union and NATO members, and posed various challenges to the Eurasian states. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is a protracted one, but this new phase is more complex and multi-layered. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol in 2014, and support to the militant separatists in Donbas, undermined Ukrainian sovereignty. A series of border skirmishes occurred during 2014-2021, which led to thousands of people dead and injured.[1] The tension converted into a humanitarian crisis with millions of refugees and collateral damages after the 2022 war. This recent situation can be termed as a geopolitical warfare, which is based on the politics of security to assert political advantages in the desired geopolitical sphere of influence. In this paper, an effort has been made to examine the structural, bilateral, and regional issues that have led Russia to engage in a risky war. It hypothesise that this war cannot be recognized only as a bilateral war between Russia and Ukraine based on the old issues, rather it is the result of new developments in the shape of Ukraine’s pursuit for a new identity and affinity with West, its bid for NATO membership and as a client of US and EU against Russia in the great power rivalry. The theoretical lens of Neo-Realism and the security dilemma best explains the causes of the war between the two. Finally, this study also endeavours to trace some important implications for the Eurasian Region. [1] Conflict-Related Civilian Casualties in Ukraine. United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, 2022.

This chapter discusses how Xi Jinping’s rule and American responses have interacted to cause US-China relations to deteriorate under the Trump and Biden administrations. During the Trump administration, China’s increasingly belligerent foreign policy brought hawkish elements to the fore especially during Trump’s campaign for re-election. After Biden entered the White House, Xi Jinping doubled down on his global overreach rather than signaling a desire for reconciliation. With the recent cases of China’s border clash with India, trade sanctions to punish Australia, the more frequent maritime incursions in Asia, and the support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this chapter concludes that the overreaching is likely to be more acute in Xi’s third term. It also recognizes that China’s peaceful rise would require gradual political reform that is missing today under Xi Jinping.

Following Donald Trump’s election as US president in 2024, which cast doubt on US security commitments, European leaders renewed calls for deeper defence cooperation to deter Russia. Yet multinational efforts often increase political and bureaucratic complexity, delaying decision-making and capability development. Previously, Europe could accept this trade-off because funding was the scarcest resource, and sacrificing speed and autonomy in exchange for cost savings and shared capabilities was considered paramount. Now, however, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Washington’s increasing scepticism towards European defence have turned time into the critical factor. Time has become Europe’s new ‘currency’ of defence, and militaries must rapidly enhance their capabilities in a far more volatile environment. Rather than abandoning cooperation, European countries – especially the front-line states – should undertake urgent national preparations first, then integrate and coordinate within NATO or European Union structures, balancing immediate speed with longer-term collective-security objectives.

This article examines the evolution of collective memory and historical narratives in the Baltic states, adopting a diachronic perspective to trace their trajectory from the Soviet era to the present. The Baltic Way, a central moment of anti-Soviet resistance, played a central role in shaping a distinct ethno-national identity, challenging Soviet narrative and fostering national unity. Following EU accession (2004), the Baltic states leveraged their membership to promote these narratives at the European level, influencing memory politics and relations with Russia. However, since 2014, geopolitical shifts –particularly Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine (2022)– have intensified contestation over historical narratives, even leading to a discernible «de-Europeanisation» of collective memory. This process has been exacerbated by the rise of populist movements and the instrumentalization of memory within hybrid threats, including disinformation campaigns. The securitisation of narratives, driven by Russian interference, has replaced earlier emphases on European values with national security concerns. This shift fuels exclusivist narratives, often exploited to mobilise support, exacerbating nationalism and xenophobia. Consequently, collective memory has become a battleground in international relations, with significant implications for democratic resilience, European stability, and international order. This study analyses these dynamics, revealing how historical narratives are strategically repurposed to legitimise political agendas and discredit opposition.

The escalation of ecclesial and religio-political conflicts since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has further complicated the convoluted ecclesial situation in Ukraine and has been addressed in a series of sermons, formal statements and documents issued by senior Russian and Ukrainian ecclesiastical figures. Their ideological and theological rhetoric demonstrates the active participation of senior Russian Orthodox clerics in the justification of the Russian military effort which represents some radical ruptures in Eastern Orthodox ecclesial involvement in war-making and mobilisation. The Moscow Patriarchate’s war-legitimisation stances and policies have major repercussions for the current debates on and reconceptions of the Christian just-war tradition in the frameworks of just peace, peacebuilding and reconciliation, as well as the potential key role of Christian religious actors in these processes.

Western allies have imposed restrictive measures on Russian banks and threatened harsher sanctions on the finance sector since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. However, this did not impede sanctioned banks reporting record profits, nor deter Russia from invading Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Although the sanctions’ full effectiveness remains in question, the impact of Russia's invasion of Ukraine has not only caused a retreat of foreign banks from mainland Russia, but also ended the international ambitions of the largest Russian banks in Europe and beyond.

The article analyses the role of the Crimea Declaration in the restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It is argued that unilateral acts of states are widespread in international relations. Violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea is an encroachment not only on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. This is an infringement upon the fundamental principles of international law and the current international order. The article considers the point of view of the American diplomatic practice in relation to the Crimea Declaration. The Crimea Declaration is expressed in the form of a unilateral statement containing a protest regarding actions and their consequences, violating international law, by the direct recipient of the Declaration, namely, the Russian Federation. The Declaration is aimed at protecting the rights and interests of Ukraine, which is the common goal of the entire international community, and encourages its members to join this position. The Crimea Declaration fully corresponds to the definition and criteria of protest, which allows us to speak about the relevant international legal implications arising from the Declaration and other relevant acts of the United States that form a unified system. It is concluded that despite the fact that the Declaration contains general and framework provisions, it clearly reflects the US position regarding the condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, violation by Russia of fundamental principles of international law with regard to Ukraine, the non-recognition of the annexation of Crimea and its consequences, and the need for an expeditious de-occupation of Crimea. Keywords: the aggression of Russia against Ukraine, occupation of Crimea, Welles Declaration, Crimea Declaration, protest.

With no clear evidence of its origin, hybrid warfare is a worldwide phenomenon, its effects having worldwide reverberations. Characterised by a very high adaptability and flexibility of the methods and procedures used, as well as the continuous expansion of the target audience or the area of coverage, hybrid warfare is not a new concept in human history. Overshadowed by the much higher degree of destruction and the very large number of human victims – specific to conventional war – unconventional actions – an integral part of hybrid war – often go unnoticed, but their effects are felt in all areas of human society existence. Today, the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation are classic examples of hybrid warfare, characterised by true intentions concealment along with the fact that special operations forces experience and support allowed ethnic Russian communities to organise paramilitary groups with the aim of creating an ambiguous and insecure environment on Ukraine’s territory. Furthermore, these events forced NATO leaders to identify and implement measures to limit and reduce Russian Federation possibilities to apply a similar strategy against the Black Sea or Baltic Sea member states. Analysing in detail the Russian hybrid actions major impact in the maritime environment, materialised both by the two parties’ state borders modification and the Russian Federation Exclusive Economic Zone expansion to the detriment of Ukraine, this paper aims to identify geographical and economic vulnerabilities in the Black Sea, the exploitation of which can result in the weakening of the south-eastern flank of the North Atlantic Alliance. Moreover, the present study’s results will represent the basis of a further analysis that will highlight the optimal measures for their reduction.

One of the major franchises in Finland’s top division in men’s ice hockey (Liiga), Jokerit Helsinki, sold its home arena and half of its shares to Finnish-Russian oligarchs in 2013. Jokerit also switched to the Russian-led Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) and competed there from 2014 to 2022. Russia’s KHL project and its expansion to the West can be viewed as a form of soft power. This study delves into the journalistic coverage of Jokerit during two specific periods: Its early days in the KHL and its later stages when exiting the league. These periods coincide with critical geopolitical events, such as Russia’s annexation of Crimea (2014), Belarusian protests (2020–2021), and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (2022). Our data consists of Jokerit-related articles in the newspaper <em>Helsingin Sanomat</em> as well as interviews of the journalists who followed the team closely. We explore the critical socio-political coverage of Jokerit in <em>Helsingin Sanomat</em> during these periods and investigate whether the sports journalists recognized the broader geopolitical context of the KHL project and, if so, how this influenced their reporting. Utilizing the framing theory, we identified five frames under which to divide the articles: (a) sports events, (b) international relations, (c) power and governance, (d) business, and (e) unity. The sports event frame predominated during the early KHL era, whereas international relations and power and governance frames only emerged later. These shifts were not initiated by sports journalists but resulted from the efforts of journalists in other fields and increased the societal scrutiny of ties to Russia.

Background: It has been a year since Russia heavily invaded Ukraine, leading to prolonged violence and devastation. Russia had previously disregarded international law by annexing Crimea, violating the principle of the use of force, and breaking numerous treaties that safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Despite the invasion occurring a year ago, Ukraine remains in a dire situation, with the conflict causing significant harm to its people and infrastructure. This paper aims to examine the legal implications of Russia’s invasion from an international perspective, and to consider the potential repercussions of such actions. Methods: This research paper analyses the legal implications of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, focusing on Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea. Through the application of legal positivism, which seeks to analyse the law in a way that is objective and value-neutral, the paper argues that Russia’s actions contravene Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Conclusion and recommendations: The Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine and subsequent territorial seizure constitutes a violation of international law. While there are ways to address this violation, the possession of nuclear weapons by a state may make it difficult to take action. The ICC is investigating the situation in Ukraine and can prosecute individuals for international crimes, but national courts also have a crucial role in ensuring justice. Notwithstanding, it is imperative for the international community to unite and condemn aggression against independent nations, with a critical mass of states prepared to take measures to halt or decrease acts of aggression while also providing assistance to victims. It is vital to demonstrate that international law remains valid and binding, and that the illegitimate use of force will never be accepted or even tolerated.

With no clear evidence of its origin, hybrid warfare is a worldwide phenomenon, its effects having worldwide reverberations. Characterised by a very high adaptability and flexibility of the methods and procedures used, as well as the continuous expansion of the target audience or the area of coverage, hybrid warfare is not a new concept in human history. Overshadowed by the much higher degree of destruction and the very large number of human victims – specific to conventional war – unconventional actions – an integral part of hybrid war – often go unnoticed, but their effects are felt in all areas of human society existence. Today, the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation are classic examples of hybrid warfare, characterised by true intentions concealment along with the fact that special operations forces experience and support allowed ethnic Russian communities to organise paramilitary groups with the aim of creating an ambiguous and insecure environment on Ukraine’s territory. Furthermore, these events forced NATO leaders to identify and implement measures to limit and reduce Russian Federation possibilities to apply a similar strategy against the Black Sea or Baltic Sea member states. Analysing in detail the Russian hybrid actions major impact in the maritime environment, materialised both by the two parties’ state borders modification and the Russian Federation Exclusive Economic Zone expansion to the detriment of Ukraine, this paper aims to identify geographical and economic vulnerabilities in the Black Sea, the exploitation of which can result in the weakening of the south-eastern flank of the North Atlantic Alliance. Moreover, the present study’s results will represent the basis of a further analysis that will highlight the optimal measures for their reduction.