Chapter 2: Modern Theoretical Development of Geopolitics and Strategic Studies

First Generation of Geopolitics

In the first stage of geopolitical thinking, geopolitics was understood as an objective scientific exercise whose primary reason was to offer ironclad statements on the impact of geographical location and physical terrain on the ability of states to maximize their power in international politics.

Geopolitics in Early Stages

Since the second half of the nineteenth century till the onset of the Cold War era, geopolitics was mainly an imperial exercise undertaken by great powers. Mackinder, a geographer in the United Kingdom, is considered to be the first important geopolitical thinker. His heartland theory assumes that the particular power that controls the Eurasian landmass would eventually control the global politics and master the universe. In his characterization, land powers are more likely to lay claim to regional and global hegemony than maritime powers.

Geopolitics in its early stages was closely associated with Germany’s foreign policy practices, a latecomer in the struggle for building colonial empires across the globe. Friedrich Ratzel and Karl Haushofer are the most notable German geopolitical thinkers and their thoughts on geopolitics profoundly shaped foreign policies of Nazi Germany during the interwar years and Second World War. The impact of their thought on Nazi Germany’s policies was so decisive and pernicious that geopolitics had been for a long time associated with Hitler’s Germany and considered to be an intellectual exercise serving Hitler’s goals to institute German hegemony across the globe.

Geographical Location and Geopolitical Thinking

The idea that countries’ geographical location is their destiny is very much informed by such imperial/first-age geopolitical thinking. Geography serves either as a power multiplier or constraint on maneuvering capability. First generation geopolitical thinkers were quite influential in the dissemination of the idea that geography is destiny.

Traces of such thinking are quite visible in foreign and security policy practices of many countries across the globe. To give an example, Russian elites and people alike tend to believe that Russia should never let hostile countries take control of territories to Russia’s west and south mainly because Russia is highly indefensible from these directions. The reason why Russian leadership, particularly the current Russian President Putin, is very much against the idea of NATO’s enlargement towards post-communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe as well as the Caucasus is that Russians believe their country would be surrounded by hostile nations and this would be a direct assault on Russian geopolitical interests in the post-Soviet area. From the Russian perspective, Russia is a great power and its geopolitical primacy in the post-Soviet area should be recognized by other great powers.

Similar to Russia, China also adopts a very lucid geopolitical approach in its foreign policy. While investing in area-denial and anti-access military capabilities aiming at curtailing the access of the United States to the East China and South China Seas on the one hand, the construction of massive infrastructure projects in the larger Eurasian region and across the globe targets connecting many states to China. Using China’s geographical location and immense economic power, Chinese leadership has been trying to increase China’s power capacity in the emerging great power competition all over the world.

Lying at the intersection of three different continents and possessing vital sea passages like the Dardanelles and Bosporus Straits, Turkey is simultaneously both secure and insecure. Its geographical location and the physical characteristics of its terrain can be seen both as assets and liabilities in Turkey’s dealing with other countries.

The idea that geography is destiny manifests itself in security culture and practices of other countries as well. For example while the United States is mainly a sea power trying to project power across the world through its blue water navy and marine forces, Russia, China and Germany are textbook examples of land powers. Land powers tend to invest a lot in their armies and defensive military capabilities mainly because they feel themselves surrounded by numerous neighboring countries.

Second Generation of Geopolitics

The second generation of geopolitical studies came to the fore following the end of the Second World War. Throughout the long Cold war years, the US-led Western camp was in bitter ideological competition with the Soviet Union-led eastern camp. The major faultiness between the two opposing power blocks was ideological. The parties competed with each other as to whose politicaleconomic model would triumph across the globe.

Ideological Geopolitics

The camps in this competition were the liberal-democratic capitalist western countries and authoritarian communist eastern countries. There was a rivalry between the two camps over the so-called Third World. At stake was to ensure the countries that were considered to be part of the Third World should not join the opposing side. Third world countries also constituted the playing ground between the two camps. Rather than facing off each other directly, they both preferred to score goals against each other through their proxies in the Third World countries.

During the Cold War Period

During the Cold War era, both the United States and the Soviet Union did their best to increase the number of countries adopting their political ideologies. Their goal was to help enlarge their ideological sphere of influence.

Third Generation of Geopolitics

Third generation geopolitics began with the end of the Cold War rivalry between two opposing power blocks adopting diverging political ideologies. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the unification of Germany in 1990 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 epitomized the end of ideological geopolitics. Since the early 1990s till the end of the first decade of the twenty first century, analysts observed the rise of a new geopolitical understanding being defined by many as a new world order. New world order geopolitics suggested that there was only one super power all over the world and all other states would gain influence in international politics in relation to the status of their relationship with the global hegemon.

End of the Cold War

Since the early 1990s until 2008, the United States, in partnership with its European allies within NATO and the European Union, dictated international politics. This period was the heyday of the ‘liberal international order’. Not only did it gradually expand to include former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe, but also the immense material power capabilities of the United States allowed her to pursue primacist strategies all around the world.

Looking to emerging security structure in the era of fourth generation geopolitics, the United States would remain as the main security provider across the globe and the US-led security organizations established during the long Cold War era would maintain their relevance. For example, rather than NATO being thrown in the dustbin of history, it would further enlarge to former enemies of the Warsaw Pact.

Regional or Global Security Organizations

The extreme self-confidence on the part of the American statesmen led them to argue that the United States is the indispensable nation and there is no need to help bring into existence new regional or global security organizations that would potentially replace NATO.

Intrastate wars, viz. civil wars, would replace interstate wars. The wars in the Balkans and the Caucasus during the 1990s demonstrated that the major threats to regional and global security would stem from internal conflicts rather than interstate power competitions. During this time period many states across the globe, saving the United States, decreased their military spending in proportion to their Cold War era spending and armies went through a transformation process thereby their peacekeeping and peacemaking capabilities improved.

This time period also attested to the heyday of the European Union integration process. The EU both enlarged horizontally and deepened vertically. Many countries around the globe looked to the European Union integration process as the ideal example to emulate. EU appeared to be a successful role model for other countries across the globe. New world order geopolitics suggested that American hegemony would keep the peace in the world and other countries would be able to devote much more energy and capital to their economic development and political maturation in line with liberal democratic capitalist values.

Fourth Generation of Geopolitics

Even though the 9/11 attacks on the US homeland dented the image of the United States as the omnipotent global hegemon and criticisms of the American approach to the global war on terror intensified following the US occupation of Iraq, it was primarily following the financial crisis of the late 2000s that a sense of decline began to percolate down to the western elites in the United States and EU members.

After the 9/11 Attacks

Not only has the feeling of optimism eroded but also the specter of non-western powers challenging the primacy of western powers has begun to haunt many westerners. As the Russian resurgence and Chinese revival took root, the calls for accommodating rising non-western powers in the institutional structure of the liberal international order began to be heard more loudly.

Since 2008 there have been disputes all over the world over the values of multiculturalism, openness, tolerance, and universal human rights. The morality of universal cosmopolitanism has gradually given way to the morality of relative communitarianism as rising non-western powers, primarily China and Russia, have increasingly offered non-western conceptualizations of international political order.

In Today’s International Order

In today’s international order, the ideological polarization of opposing power blocks is not as sharp and rigid as it was during the Cold War era. The interconnectedness between liberal western powers and illiberal authoritarian powers is much higher now than it was between western capitalist and eastern communist countries during the Cold war era. This suggests that we now live in a multiplex world order.

Critical Geopolitics

The word ‘geopolitics’ consists of two different words. ‘Geo’ is the abbreviation of geography. Politics means deciding who gets what, how and when.

The fundamental claim of critical geopolitical studies is that all kinds of geopolitical understandings are subjective and reflect particular values and previously conceived national interests.

There is not an objective scientific understanding of geopolitics as claimed by first generation geopolitical writers. There is not a bird-view of geopolitics which is claimed to be timeless and ahistorical.

Geopolitics and Power Relations

From the perspective of critical geopolitics, meanings attributed to particular geographical locations emanate from deeply held political interests and subjective understandings of identity. Power relations determine purchasing value of geopolitical understandings. Throughout history different meanings have been attributed to geographical sites. In parallel to its increasing material power capability, China is also posing fundamental challenges to the normative fabric of the liberal world order.

Today’s Liberal World Order and Geopolitics

The liberal world order, which has come into being following the end of World War II under American leadership, has been going through a radical transformation in recent years mostly owing to China’s spectacular rise.

China owes its meteoric rise in global politics to its efforts to become a part of the capitalist world economy. Its influence in global politics arises from the intense economic relationships that it has developed with many other countries. China has now become the number one trading-partner of not only its neighbors to the south and east but also many developed countries in the West.

China owes its meteoric rise in global politics to its efforts to become a part of the capitalist world economy. Its influence in global politics arises from the intense economic relationships that it has developed with many other countries. China has now become the number one trading-partner of not only its neighbors to the south and east but also many developed countries in the West.

Power and Geopolitics

Geopolitical understandings of different time periods tend to demonstrate diverging conceptualizations of power. Power is closely related to geopolitics. For example, while first and fourth generation of geopolitical competitions underline the primacy of hard power calculations and behaviors in relational relations, second and third generation of geopolitics tend to put more emphasis on soft power. Critical geopolitics would on the other hand say that it is not easy to separate hard power from soft power and states employ a mix of all power capabilities and relations in their efforts to justify their geopolitical view and claims.

Power is relational because for power to exist there needs to be at least two actors interacting with each other. For example, if the state B does not meet the demands of the state A or change its behaviors along the expectations of the State A, the state A does not have power over the state B. Possessing mere power capabilities and the will to use them does not automatically translate into being powerful. Being powerful requires the compliance of others with the demands of the state that tries to have an impact on their choices.

The Will Dimension

Not all states are willing to have an influence on the choices of others. Some states are defined as status-quo oriented powers whereas some others are considered to be as status-seekers or status-quo changers. Status-quo oriented states are those that are content with the current power configuration in the system and they do not aspire to change it. They are merely concerned with their existing status within the system and want to make sure that it continues. Their foreign policies most of the time begin and end at their national borders. They are generally risk-averse states. Rather than act, they react to external developments. They are not concerned with how other states are ruled internally and act externally. In their imaginations the number one foreign policy interest/priority is to make sure that external developments do not affect their internal order and current position within the system negatively. Even though many of such states can be found at fringes of international politics, it is extremely difficult to put a particular state into this category because even the status-quo oriented states have to play by the rules of power politics and engage others instrumentally to protect what they possess at a given time.

The Capability Dimension

This dimension of power prioritizes capabilities of actors in a non-relational fashion. In this sense, some states are defined as hard powers, meaning that the tangible power capabilities at their disposal would enable them to influence the behaviors, interests and values of other states. Hard power capabilities can be of both military and non-military in nature. Therefore, a more apt categorization would be how these military and nonmilitary capabilities would be employed to have an impact on others. Which particular logic would shape the actions of power-holder?

The Rational Dimension

Being powerful requires the interaction of at least two different actors, one side trying to influence the choices of others whereas the other thinking/calculating whether or not to comply with demands of the one. In this regard power is defined as a relationship. Coercive, inducing/ coaxing, attractive and persuasive strategies are employed by the side that tries to influence others. Equally important is how others would reciprocate to such demands. Would they comply with the terms of the power holder out of fear, interests or legitimacy? If there is fear, this is coercive hard power relationship. If interests are in play, this is inducing/ coaxing hard power relationship. If legitimacy drives action, this is soft power relationship.