“During the past 3 centuries human population has increased tenfold to 6000 million and fourfold in the 20th century

• Cattle population increased to 1400 million (one cow/family) by a factor of 4 during the past century

• There are currently some 20 billion (20,000 million) of farm animals worldwide

• Urbanisation grew more than tenfold in the past century almost half of the people live in cities and megacities

• Industrial output increased 40 times during the past century; energy use 16 times

• Almost 50 % of the land surface has been transformed by human action”

Paul Crutzen

Dutch Nobel prize winning atmospheric chemist***

“Fish catch increased 40 times

• The release of SO2 (110 Tg/year) by coal and oil burning is at least twice the sum of all natural emissions;

over land the increase has been 7 fold, causing acid rain, health effects, poor visibility and climate changes due to sulfate aerosols

• Releases of NO to the atmosphere from fossil fuel and biomass burning is larger than its natural inputs, causing regional high surface ozone levels

• Several climatically important ”greenhouse gases” have substantially increased in the atmosphere, eg.

CO2 by 40 %, CH4 by more than 100 %.”

Paul Crutzen

Dutch Nobel prize winning atmospheric chemist***

“Water use increased 9 fold during the past century to 800 m3 per capita / year;

65 % for irrigation, 25 % industry, ~10 % households

It takes 20, 000 litres of water to grow 1 kilo of coffee

11,000 litres of water to make a quarter pounder

5,000 litres of water to make 1 kilo of cheese

1 kg meat → 16000 litres of water

1 kg grain → 1000 litres of water”

Paul Crutzen

Dutch Nobel prize winning atmospheric chemist

Воєнна доктрина РФ в переліку загроз містить розширення НАТО і нарощування можливостей США та альнсу в цілому..*** У Стратегії Національної безпеки США дії Росії кваліфіковані як агресія що потребує протидії.. *** Росія реформує силові структури: відбувається створення Федеральної служби військ Національної Гвардії на базі Внутрішніх військ МВС, Федеральної міграційної служби та Федеральної служби контролю обігу наркотиків.. *** Глави оборонних відомств країн ЄС погодили новий план оборони і безпеки та домовилися створити новий штаб і спільні сили швидкого реагування.. ***

Head of the Department of National Security of the National Academy of Public Administration under the Office of the President of Ukraine, Scientist in Honour of Ukraine G.Sytnyk: «National security should be a priority of theState and a crucial pillar of the national idea, which would combine various segments of society around the achievement of the defined goals».



Today, the science of public administration and security theory experience a difficult period of their development. This is due to the necessity of transition from the perception of separately combined experience and theoretical ideas about public administration and security (both national and international) to building integrated system theories as theoretical knowledge of the science of public administration and security. Of course, this creates significant difficulties in solving the complex problems of national security (both theoretical and methodological, and practical), especially for countries such as Ukraine which, according to many experts, is in a state of the so-called "transition of civilization". One of such problems is to develop theoretical and methodological principles of finding a conceptual approach to national security as an important factor in support of scientific development and implementation of state policy in this area.

The possibilities of the State to respond to the threats to national security depend on available resources and acceptable methods of their use, and the last – on the conceptual approach to national security. Since this is a public administration, the main part of it is nothing else as the elements of the State power. Subordinate component elements of power are power tools. This is actually a set of policy options, which provide one or another possible ways of use of these means (resources). So, demonstration of force, threat of force, blockade, complex military exercises etc. are the tools of the military element of power. At the same time achievement of these national goals could involve the use of all elements of power in combination with other means.

In general, assessment of threats and evaluation of possibilities - not only the “alpha” and “omega” of the development of key documents that define the national security strategy, but also an important factor that should be considered when choosing a conceptual approach to national security. So ultimately, the question of which minimal opportunities to achieve the declared objectives we have and which maximum level of threat to achieve them may be acceptable for us, is a political one and the reply on it should be in line with the political process.

National security – is a process of management within which special attention should be paid to various development options (scenarios) and to the integrated qualitative-quantitative assessment of the characteristics of internal and external environment, both in the context of its impact on the formation of national interests and threats to their implementation.

In concentrated form the essence of approaches to address the State authorities to these threats is a kind of reflection on the State adopted formal views on the fundamental national interests, and ways of their implementation. This, in its turn, would require answers to a number of key issues including: What is the real and potential status of the State in the geopolitical and geo-economic space?; Protection of which national material and spiritual values determines the priorities of foreign and domestic policy?; Who is (or can be) ally (strategic partner) in the implementation of the State officially declared national interests?; How the State intends to protect its national interests and what activities should be taken to increase its capacity in this context?

Clearly, because of the intensification of globalization, the emergence of a number of so-called "unconventional" threats to international and national security, there is a need to more deeply understand the sources and nature of threats to the secure existence of the individual States and the world community as a whole. Therefore the problem of choice of conceptual approaches to national security should be considered in the context of cultural and historical development of both countries, and layers of civilization within which they are formed.

Today, most leading countries choose and implement in practice the concept of so-called "political realism". At its core thesis - states are pursuing rational goals, especially concerning their needs for security. Therefore, international relations are a kind of sum of individual policies of sovereign states and world politics is interpreted as a system of balance of forces, mainly between large (powerful) states.

To some extent it can be argued that today in the international relations authority and power are of the same category. In representations of political power realists essence of the power is the ability of the State to oppose national interests of other states, even if they are vital (the sovereignty, territorial integrity and others), the threat of use of force becomes the main instrument of national policy and the ability to manipulate the threat of force - a basic characteristic of the national security policy.

Analysis of new so-called anti-terrorist strategies shows - they are just modernizing the strategies of "deterrence" and "non-nuclear deterrence" which appeared in 80 of the 90's due to creation of high-precision weapons systems. And in the current U.S. strategy, NATO, Russian accented the need to use force not only when the threat is already formed, but also when it just appeared to prevent its escalation into a real problem by preventing attacks.

Thus, by this time emphasis are made on geopolitical dimension of national security and, consequently, under the national security policy first of all understand the conditions for physical survival of the state, protecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity, the ability to adequately respond to any external threat, especially a war. So, the main thesis is that the nation is in a state security when it is not in need to sacrifice its legitimate interests to avoid war and when it is able to protect these interests, if necessary by means of war.

However, in modern conceptual approach for the international and national security the further developed received a direction which is called “constructivistic”. Within its framework new approaches are developed which would give future vision of the world community development, indicate the prospect associated with contemporary ideas about the role of national states in the world and transforming the understanding and perception of the contemporary definition of "state sovereignty".

We have now seen how economic globalization and the proliferation of technologies, especially information ones leads to the proliferation of virtual groups of interest, complicating the ability of states to good governance, including national security. And this governance is under increasing pressure from new forms of identity politics in the center of which are religious beliefs, mass, low-and very often hostile to the national achievements culture and so on.

Political leadership of Ukraine should be primarily pragmatic and realistic in its choice of value-ideological nation-building, and ideological-political concept of national security, and therefore ways and means of safeguarding the national interests. In this case, the real politics of national security really will make building a politically and economically strong Ukrainian state that will respected by other countries, and its population will be insured in having adequate protection by the State of national material and spiritual values. And under these conditions, national security can become not only priority of the State, but also the defining core of the national idea, which would combine various segments of society around achieving the specified goal.

Unfortunately, organizational and legal principles of public administration and the current legislation of Ukraine in the area of National Security, bear the imprint effect of cross-value-ideological views on the ways of state-building and political concepts of national security, which itself has become a very real threat to the State. So, under the Constitution of Ukraine, the fundamentals of national security are determined by laws. In 2003 this provision of the Constitution has become the Law (it was the Law of Ukraine "On Principles of National Security of Ukraine"), but only formally, because problems associated with specification of the Constitution concerning the management of national security were not resolved (particularly, in does not even define such definitions as "national security system").

At the same time it becomes obvious appearance of new challenges and threats to national security of Ukraine today. Thus, more and more analysts are increasingly inclined to believe that there is significant erosion of views on a unipolar world order, that this process generates a significant threat to European security. Clearly, the degree of strengthening Europe's influence on the world stage will depend on its ability to achieve greater political cohesion that is essential to prepare the "strategic vision" accepted by all members of the international policy trends and security strategies. But, for example, the position of Warsaw, Prague and other EU new members about placing in Europe the U.S. AMD elements - takes place the renationalization of foreign and security policies of individual member states. It is certainly harmful to the European Security and Defense project. The policy of "Special Partnership" of these countries with the U.S. gets more logical conclusion, and this may lead to very serious consequences for the coordination between member-countries not only EU but NATO, because the defense agreement between the U.S. and some countries in Europe will result in appearance zones of varying degrees of safety and could probably be a reason of situation when the elaboration of consolidated EU foreign policy with fundamental issues of security and defense would be virtually impossible.

Weakening the EU positions carries a negative impact on the security of Ukraine, which is kind of a bone of contention between geopolitical players - Russia and the EU, but last was giving a certain chance of Ukraine to join EU. Recent events show that Brussels postpones this perspective for Ukraine indefinitely. The biggest danger for Ukraine is that it can be practically blur out between grinder interests of Russia and the EU, given the fact that the ruling elite of Ukraine not consolidated enough to withstand this and other threats that lie in the area of socio-economic development. The elite still do not have a clear strategic and consolidated vision of the future of Ukraine, its achievements, understanding the core processes taking place in Ukraine and around it, in other words - the answer to the question "from which point and what direction society is moving to”. Instead, there are two points of views on the future of Ukraine, as they were defined by political scientist A.Ermolaev - oligarchic social utopias and two methods of their implementation.

First – Central-European Utopia - where we are talking about Ukraine's future as a kind of the average state in the European arena, with the average values of the average man, with dominant values of liberal democracy, where it is a slurred part of something greater (the European economy, NATO, etc.). Thus, the main goal of Ukraine - to achieve European standards and as far as possible "escape from Moscow”. Another model is based on the thesis of national economic success. This - technocratic industrialism focused on possible assistance from the East (resources, markets, etc.).

In both utopias there are no independent geopolitical games or any other attempt to achieve state ambitions of Ukraine and it does not apply to any civilized reform. The first one is too abstract? Because the common European values and standards to a large extent is quite abstract construction: the real European community – is an association of so called patriotic nationalists (and this is nothing bad about it). The second model-utopia will just for a long transform Ukraine into a raw material appendage of European environmental trash. That both models aimed at adapting, but not forming a unique role in nature, which is required by every independent state and without which it cannot exist.

The conclusion should be one: to avoid a constitutional crisis of statehood up to the collapse of the state of Ukraine it is necessary to do everything to become truly independent player in the international arena. The raw materials dependence, split of society, blind adherence to the "European values", or in the contrary their categorical rejection must be overcome.


1. When choosing a conceptual approach to national security it is necessary to be realistic and pragmatic about the value-ideological nation-building, and ideological-political concept of national security, and therefore ways and means of safeguarding the national interests. This will allow to build politically and economically strong Ukrainian state that will respected by other countries, and its population will be insured in existence of adequate protection by the State of its national material and spiritual values.

2. National security should be a priority of the state and a crucial pillar of the national idea, which would combine various segments of society around the achievement of the defined goals.

3. A necessary condition for the implementation of chosen conceptual approach to ensure national security is a need to make a clear distinction between political, administrative and operational functions of the security sector, and to ensure concentration of the political leadership functions at the hands of head of State.

4. Ukraine needs to implement the deep civilization reforms, because technological backwardness, dependence on raw materials, split of society and blind adherence to the "European values", both as its categorical rejection, ultimately lead to the collapse of the State.


Full text of this article you can read in Ukrainian here or in Russian here.