5. We present below the typology of the boundaries within Russian SCS space as well as their brief description, where accent is made on the problems of Ukraine and its Crimean region in particular.
In general, we identify 11 (eleven) types of the state (political) boundaries within the Russian Empire - USSR - CIS space [1]. They are:
First type – external boundary between Russian Empire - USSR - CIS and states representing alien socio-cultural formations.
Second type – boundary between Russian enclaves and their environment / neighbors. Example: boundary between Kaliningrad Region (as Russian enclave) and Lithuania. We have the same type of boundary in the Crimean case: Southern Ukrainian socio-cultural region does essentially differ from Crimea as Russian socio-cultural enclave.
In case of Crimea, even nature itself assists forming such type of a boundary: take Sivash lagoon that separates Crimea from the rest of Ukraine. Notably, Sivash is a relatively young natural formation, but it quite furthers such a separation. What is even more remarkable is that within the boundary zone of the Crimean enclave and Ukraine, in a strict accordance with the dominant (Russian) standards of the territories' assimilation, local ecological crisis is being generated: intensive growth of a chemical industry enterprises in the area and most recent experiments with the Sivash "open economic zone" should lead, in a historically brief time, to a degradation of the area's natural environment. The area should become highly unattractive for both living there and businesses / any sort of economic activity. Phenomena of such kind are being correctly described and explained in terms of the SCS theory.
Third type – boundary between Russian homeland and internal buffer zones. Example: boundary between Pskov region and Estonia. Another example gives Ukraine.
Fourth type – boundary between the states of the Russian homeland itself; it bears internal character and runs along the relic external buffer zone. Such is, for instance, the boundary between Belarus (White Russia) and Russian Federation in their present borders. Such boundary, as a rule, separates / divides the regions that are homogeneous in socio-cultural respect, and divides them in such way that they become belonging to politically different states within Russian socio-cultural system.
Fifth type – indefinite in a socio-cultural respect, boundary of internal character in the areas of historically young (pioneer) colonization. Example: Eastern Ukraine in the neighborhood of Russian Federation, with characteristic absence of definite boundary lines in the space organization.
Sixth type – not well-grounded, quite undefined and never before existed boundaries between states of Russian SCS that have been originated only recently. Example: boundaries between the states of Middle / Central Asia - former Soviet Republics. This type is only characteristic for internal boundaries within Russian SCS space. All external boundaries - with alien socio-cultural formations and SCS-s in particular - are still extremely stable and well-defined.
Seventh type – relatively clear boundary, with greater or lesser numbers of disputable (and sometimes disputed) sections, each of those may become a reason and basis for respective regional conflict and essential revision of the entire boundary line. Example: the boundary between Belarus (White Russia) and Lithuania.
Eighth type – recently formed boundary between the CIS state and enclave within its territory. Example: the boundary between Moldova and Transnistrian Republic (PMR).
Ninth type – internal boundaries between territorial-administrative units within Russian Federation. This type also includes boundaries of the autonomous republics.
Tenth type – boundary that doesn't bear the status of a stateone, but separates internal buffer zone from the Russian homeland. It has clearly defined character only in a Western part of the Russian Empire - USSR - CIS space.
Eleventh type – stable and well-defined boundaries between naturally dependent vassals within borders of the internal buffer zone of Russian SCS. These boundaries may be quite stable, because they never play significant role in themselves. Example: boundaries between the Baltic states.
Specific of the modern Ukrainian state lies in the combination of the heterogeneous structure of its territory and heterogeneity of its political borders. State boundary of Ukraine is represented by 7 (seven) different types of borders with each one possessing own specific qualities and dynamics of changes. Here we have the following types of the state (political) boundaries: First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth. Generally speaking, seven of the existing within Russian SCS types of state (political) boundaries are being represented in modern Ukraine. That's simply too much for a single state... No other post-Soviet state has to deal with such a situation. Once more, each type of a state (political) boundaries is characterized by specific evolution.
Heterogeneity of a state (political) boundaries - and especially in a combination with the heterogeneous space structure - guarantees Ukrainian state all sorts of instability for an observable future. As a form of organization (of a social and political life), state usually has essentially shorter life term compare to that of socio-cultural boundaries and regions (not to mention a socio-cultural formations). And in such conditions reforms (and economic reforms in particular) become practically impossible: any successive measures would lead only to a number of unforeseen and hardly remediable consequences. Each type of the Ukrainian state boundaries may react to a radical reform / changes in its own way.
6. Socio-cultural regions and boundaries between them are very dynamic, but their dynamics may be quite strictly described theoretically. Here are some results of our 1998 researches in this regard.
THEORETICAL EVOLUTIONARY MODEL OF SPACE SOCIO-CULTURAL
ASSIMILATION & GEOPOLITICAL PROCESSES WITHIN RUSSIAN SCS
Having analysed the evolution of the socio-cultural systems, we've discovered that, when it comes to forming their own spaces, they do display some common qualities. These qualities are being reflected in the model that demonstrates a series of logically succeeding one another stages of the SCS's space self-organization.
The model is presented in the APPENDIX 5: GENERAL MODEL OF THE PROCESS OF SPACE ASSIMILATION WITHIN SCS (all graphics are designed in Word 7.0 for Windows 95).
This theoretical model fully applies to the Russian SCS analysis. The latter's present-day condition, as from our point of view, may be interpreted as a beginning of the fifth stage. At this point, situation develops, for the most part, in a direction of increasing the state heterogeneity / diversity on the SCS's periphery. And thus, the transition from one unitary state to a bigger number of states is quite natural. It's significant that all new states are located on the SCS's periphery. Some of these peripheral states may be extremely unstable, and during a brief historical perspective (within fifth and sixth stages of the SCS's space evolution) can easily disintegrate into even greater numbers of a smaller states. In a chronological sense, it may take from around ten years to a good few decades.
Principal differences of this stage also lie in a growing quantity of enclaves. Before, there were not so many of them, but at the fifth stage the number of enclaves increases drastically. In the specific conditions of Russian SCS, it's also being expressed in a considerably grown importance of enclaves. Within boundaries of the unitary state of the past, they have just been forming. During the fifth and sixth stages, all enclaves should reveal their full potential.
The other novelty of the present stage is the rise of the demarcating socio-cultural formations that separate states of the Russian SCS's internal buffer zone. Outwardly, they look as a territories that are not really considerable in width, but quite extended in length. Their configuration is completely determined by the necessity to separate some two (or more) states of the internal buffer zone. And in this connection, their shape may be of any character. Transnistrian Republic would be an appropriate example here. It is indeed formation of the new type. Such spatial units do appear only at this, fifth stage when they play the most important role for further evolution of the buffer zone and its transformation in accordance with the dominating SCS's standards. Thus, these creations shouldn't be considered as a sort of the Nature's misunderstanding.
As a rule, state formations of an enclave type as well as demarcating socio-cultural formations may be very weak and equivocal in all respects; they are to an extreme degree complicated to contact. These territories also distinguish themselves with a great instability. They may possess whatever entangled international and inter-socio-cultural statuses and connections, and flirt freely with any states and territories in the World. But in reality, they are firmly tied only to the SCS that had actually caused these formations to exist. Successfully established connection of some enclave with a foreign state formation (a part of an alien SCS) can be destroyed very fast and efficiently by the dominating (maternal) SCS.
Within the following, sixth stage (according to the theory) utmost spatial diversity will find place within SCS - with maximum numbers of enclaves and demarcating socio-cultural formations, highly complicated political situation, numerous weak and frequently mutating states that may maintain extravagantly intricate internal relationships and often even imitate "leaving" their own SCS. At this stage, feeling of the SCS's total breakdown arises, but it's more of a deceptive illusion: socio-cultural system simply cannot change itself, and especially perish, due to the reasons of just geopolitical character. Socio-cultural and geopolitical levels are different, and their connection is quite relative. Beyond the question, geopolitical processes just follow in fundamental socio-cultural trends, and whatever happens at the political and geopolitical levels, evolutionary process of the SCS's space socio-cultural assimilation is in progress as usual.
Let's note once more that, from our point of view, in the late XX century, painful (in a geopolitical sense) fifth and sixth stages take place within Russian SCS. But these stages are natural and logically integrated into general process of the entire Russian SCS's evolution.
7. DYNAMICS OF THE SOCIO-CULTURAL REGIONS & ENCLAVES WITHIN THE RUSSIAN SCS's SPACE
Based on the above theses and researches we referred to earlier, the following general conclusions as to dynamics of regions and enclaves within Russian SCS can be made:
First
As for socio-cultural regions and enclaves, highly changeable situation takes place within the Russian SCS's space. Russian socio-cultural space - depending on the period of the Russian SCS's evolution - possesses strictly determinate set of regions and enclaves. Direct correspondence between the period of the Russian SCS's evolution and the existing set of (as well as current processes in) regions and enclaves within its space should be noted: own specific set of socio-cultural regions and enclaves corresponds to each and every period of the socio-cultural evolution.
External restrictions to the extensive growth of the regions' and enclaves' number in any SCS are determined by the fact of reaching the spaces of alien SCS-s' control. In Russian SCS, this was achieved by the late XIX century.
Second
Regular, natural socio-cultural evolution of the Russian SCS's space self-organization takes place. It is not linked directly to the geopolitical conditions of Russian state(-s). Within Russian SCS, forms of state(-s) may change drastically. At one stage, a huge powerful unitary state may exist; then it may disintegrate into a great number of smaller (and weaker) states; then again, it may unite all these into one strong unitary state - and so on, and on, and on. There may be not much logical connection between the Russian state's transformations of that kind. In any case, it (the logic of transformation) doesn't come to light if only state formations' evolution is being analysed. The state's bankruptcy (say, due to its wrong policy or ideology) may be seen as an apparent cause, but that's just the geopolitical level.
However, the natural logic is present in socio-cultural organization of the SCS's space and in the way the combination of regions' and enclaves' joint space is being formed. Their transformations do usually develop in two directions:
Where the first one is incorporation of the new socio-cultural regions and enclaves into the Russian SCS's space. New socio-cultural regions and enclaves are being included into Russian state's space control (as a rule) at the time of its transition to the next period of a socio-cultural evolution. The limitations here are the alien SCS-s' spaces only;
And the second one being the reformation of the already existing within Russian SCS regions' and enclaves' character. These may essentially modify both their character and socio-cultural functions. This aspect is determined only by the internal logic of the Russian SCS's evolution.
Third
Changes within Russian SCS in practice do not necessarily involve spatial fluctuations of the socio-cultural regions' boundaries. As far as the opinion could be formed at the modern level of knowledge, it is characteristic of all the types of boundaries within Russian SCS. Let's remind that there are eleven types of the boundaries within Russian socio-cultural space, and all of them are being exuded just empirically.
Configuration of the Russian SCS's regions' and enclaves' boundaries turned out to be quite static. It changes very slowly and insignificantly, and the transformations that really happen are rather exceptions - not a rule. The main direction of the boundaries' evolution within Russian SCS is determined by dramatic changes of the boundaries' socio-cultural nature, or character, without modification of their exterior configuration. They retain certain configuration and, separating one and the same region from its socio-cultural environment / neighbours, a boundary may drastically change its own character and type. That's the essence of the boundaries' dynamics - not just their fluctuations all round the territory. Modification of the region's boundary type is well co-ordinated with the socio-cultural transformations of the region itself.
This consideration concerns only socio-cultural boundaries: it's their configuration that is fairly static. Having been formed once, these boundaries do change to a very insignificant extent. They become a foundation for initial development of a certain socio-cultural region or enclave; then this region or enclave develops and transforms in accordance with the general logic of the Russian SCS's evolution.
Fourth
There is no direct connection between geopolitical and socio-cultural processes within Russian SCS. Obvious dominants in Russian SCS - as in any other - are socio-cultural processes. That's they determine state's forms (the number and character of states within SCS, configuration of their boundaries, etc.).
Static condition isn't characteristic of a state (political) boundaries: these may fluctuate in space very considerably, but it doesn't play a principal role for the SCS. Geopolitical process here is being directed by socio-cultural specifics of the space assimilation.
Depending on specific qualities of the current period of the Russian socio-cultural space assimilation, Russian state may acquire essentially different forms. It may exist as one unitary state, with only capital and hard policy of centralisation; and there may be great number of states, with no centralisation and no unitary policy at all. All these are just external manifestations of the process of SCS's space socio-cultural conversion. Transformations of such kind may correctly be understood only in general context of the Russian space evolution.
It is especially important that existence - during certain intervals of the history - of a big number of states within Russian SCS doesn't really influence the state (condition) of its socio-cultural regions and enclaves. This phenomenon has no connection with the state of their boundaries, too. It's only linked to forming a set of strictly definite types of regions and enclaves. Further step in a process of the Russian space self-organization is being made, and a certain form of a state - appropriate to the tasks of the period of evolution - emerges.
In this respect, disintegration of the USSR and rise of 15 independent states and potential possibility of this geopolitical process further progress - revealing itself, for instance, in the transformation of Ukraine and some Central-Asian CIS republics (Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in particular) into new and numerous state formations - have almost nothing to do with evolution of socio-cultural regions and enclaves. All these still remain the Russian SCS's space that's going now through the next stage of its evolution. It categorically isn't linked to a unitary state status only. Numerous regional conflicts are not the signs of the Russian state's weakness and degradation, but of the Russian SCS's space subsequent socio-cultural transformation.