The military invasion of the aggressor state into Ukraine is one of the most relevant topics in the recent Ukrainian and world academic literature because the results of the conflict will affect not only national interests but also the security and well-being of other states. Ukraine’s foreign policy strategy plays a significant role in the further development of the conflict. It improves relations with other states, obtaining support in the fight against the aggressor, restoring Ukraine's integrity and citizens' safety, counteracting the food crisis, etc. The study aims to determine the main strategic directions of Ukraine’s foreign policy, the characteristics of its legislative support, and its current state. The research used the following methods: economic and statistical analysis, the establishment of causal relationships, and the comparative method. The study identified and described six main directions of Ukraine’s foreign policy. Legislative documents that enshrine the outlined directions were identified. The government’s steps in specific directions were described. The statistical characteristics of individual areas of Ukraine’s foreign policy were outlined. The state of some aspects of Ukraine’s foreign policy before the war and after the full-scale invasion was compared. Ukraine’s prospects for achieving the desired results in the specified areas were assessed.

The purpose of the article is to analyze the basic principles of Russian memorial policy in Crimea in the context of Russia's current imperial ambitions. Research methodology is based on a systematic approach, which allows us to consider the policy of memory in Russia as part of public policy to restore the status of "great power" in the world. Scientific novelty of the study is that it has been proved that Russia is actively filling the symbolic space of Crimea with imperial symbols at the same time as preserving the symbols of the Soviet times to restore the imperial status in modern realities. Conclusions. Russia has always considered Crimea its own territory and was not going to give up the peninsula. To support the dominance of pro-Russian sentiment, they actively used symbolic space, trying to fill it with their own cultural symbols. With monuments in honor of Empress Catherine II, the Russian authorities reminded of the first annexation of Crimea and demonstrated their own historical claims to the peninsula. Even, partial decommunization in Crimea took place according to the Russian scenario – the streets were given back the names of the times of the Russian Empire. After the annexation, the Kremlin implemented its own memory policy on the peninsula, demonstrating through new monuments the «Russian status» of the peninsula and its role in the formation and development of the Russian Empire. Accordingly, imperial symbols, along with Orthodox ones, are beginning to play a key role in Crimea. At the same time, Moscow preserves and enlarges the Soviet symbolic space to accelerate the process of building the «Fifth Empire» through the reconciliation of «white» and «red» projects in the mental field, the expansionist foundation of which was laid by the annexation of Crimea.