{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036051026067665005, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013311148086522463, 'mean_word_length': 5.352112676056338, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Concepts of state formation of the era national liberation competition (1917–1920)

The article considers the concepts of state formation of the era of national liberation struggles (1917–1920) – M. Hrushevsky, V. Vynnychenko, M. Tugan-Baranovsky, P. Skoropadsky, S. Petliura, S. Dnistryansky. They are based on the ideas of building a sovereign, democratic, parliamentary republic (UPR) or an alternative hetman Ukrainian state or a democratic state governed by the rule of law (ZUNR). They enriched the state and legal thought, theoretical models of Ukrainian statehood, accumulated the program principles of political parties and public organizations. The short duration of the existence of the UPR and ZUNR does not cancel out the fruitful state-building experience of its leaders and people, democratic law-making. labor monarchy "(V. Lypynsky), parliamentary-presidential republic as a democratic, legal, social state (S. Dnistryansky).
Particular attention is paid to the political journalism of M. Hrushevsky and V. Vynnychenko, the constitutional projects of domestic statesmen. They are based on a short but fruitful state-building experience, hopes for a real prospect of establishing Ukrainian national statehood with the support of the international community. The article draws attention to the simplified idea of ​​some researchers about the "federalism" of M. Hrushevsky and other figures of the Central Council, the main reasons for its fall, the impact of geopolitical factors on state-building processes in Ukraine, which is a violation of methodological principles of historicism and objectivity. The positive potential of state formation in 1917–1920 and its unresolved theoretical and practical problems will remain an instructive example for current and future domestic statesmen.