In past times, the World Economic Forum in Davos pleased visiting journalists with delicious oligarchic breakfasts. But if Ukrainian oligarchs surprised guests with gourmet breakfasts, then Ukrainian officials regaled our distinguished guests with empty promises, flavored with salty tears asking to “provide for food” some billion loans. This year, you can also expect something enchanting in the Ukrainian section, including flags, anthem and a battery of “Dom Perignon” bottles at a price like ten average Ukrainian pensions for one. But if earlier oligarchic participation at least minimally supported the interest of Western investors in our country, now Ukraine’s participation in the Davos forum can be compared with the participation of “independent Mongolia” at the winter Olympics. Independent in the sense that nothing depends on it.



In order for your presence or absence to have any effect anywhere, it is first necessary to return your subjectivity. Especially when it comes to international politics. “Object countries” are of no interest to anyone in the global world, because everyone is well aware that negotiating with them is a waste of time. It is better to directly contact the "owner".



In this regard, the presence of Ukraine on the forum will be perceived the same as our absence. No one will pay attention to this fact and, perhaps, it will not even be reflected in the official reports "from the fields". In order to change the situation, our country must first show the world that the daily routine of the whole country is written not in the memorandum with the IMF, but in the internal intellectual environment. Only then the investors will accept the fact that the fate of Ukraine needs to be discussed with Ukrainians, since we still have an intellectual elite capable of developing new economic meanings.

The request for subjectivity exists both within the country and in the external environment. Global capital has still not understood how the 40-millionth country in the east of the richest world economic conglomerate - the EU - could disappear from the investor radar.

But I find more interesting another typification of economies proposed by O’Neil - this is the so-called group of 11 countries or N-11 (Next Eleven). The following countries were included: Mexico, Nigeria, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam, South Korea, Philippines.



According to the analyst, these countries are very likely to become the new locomotives of the world economy and change the relief of the distribution of productive forces in the 21st century, even pressing the BRICS group.



The future economic regionalization of the global economy will not develop according to the principle of raw materials or agricultural potential. And not according to the factor of innovation. All that matters is a possibility to pursue a new industrial policy. The fact is that innovations are derived from an effective industrial core of the economy, which allows for a sufficient level to finance science, education, medicine. In addition, the industrial core creates demand for innovations and an environment for their successful transfer to the real sector.