Part 1. Geopolitics Seminar 2-6 Osinina Daria, Political Science Department DDOsinina@fa.ru
The course lasts 2 semesters - in the 6th semester there is a credit, in the 7th semester there is an exam. 2. 6th semester (current): Lectures - 8 (16 hours), conducted by S.A. Pritchin Seminars - 26 (52 hours), conducted by D.D. Osinina Final form of control - credit (accepted together with the lecturer, in oral format) Intermediate form of control - test work (until the assessment period in early April). 3. There are 12 topics in total.
Seminar Attendance and Participation Policy ( 26 seminars in total ) – 26 points ( 1 point for each seminar and activity on it ). Attending lectures and Participation Policy ( 8 lectures in total) – 8 points ( 1 point for each lecture and activity on it ). Creative Assignment: analytical report on the topic, in May – additional points for the credit (max 15 points). Test: conducting a test on the issues discussed ( in class ) – 6 points. Total - 100 points.
Questions for discussion: 1) Geopolitics as a part of Political Science 2) Heartland, Lenaland and Rimland 3) Continental and Anglo-Saxon geopolitics 4) Russian geopolitics 5) The concept of “great powers”
The term “geopolitics” was developed by the Swedish scientist Rudolf Kjellen (1864-1922). He defined it as “ the doctrine which regards the state as a geographical organism or spatial phenomenon ”. Geopolitics considers the state not statically - as a permanent, unchanging formation, but dynamically - as a living being. The state is linked with the environment and space. Therefore, problems arising from spatial relations are of particular interest to geopolitics. For example, a change in the political landscape as a result of the transformation of the system of international relations!!! Geopolitics uses geographical factors to justify and explain both the domestic and foreign policies of states : the nature of borders, the provision of minerals and other natural resources, island or land location, climate, etc.
Representatives: - А. Mahan, - Х. Makinder, - Н. Spykman Representatives: G. Kissinger Zb. Brzezinski Being advisers to presidents, they transferred theoretical postulates into practice.
Key Names: А. Mahan (American), Х. Makinder (British), Н. Spykman (American) Mackinder's development of a “new geography” in 1904 - the article “The Geographical Axis of History”, where he proclaims in general terms the principles of civilizational dualism of Land and Sea. 2. In 1919, Mackinder wrote Democratic Ideals and Reality. It is essentially an appeal to Woodrow Wilson, where he tries to combine the liberal ideals of the American president and geopolitical reality. This is where Mackinder divides the map into sea powers, the outlying lands (Rimland) and the Heartland. His idea is that the West should unite and take control of Rimland, locking up the Heartland powers and strangling them. 3. Nicholas John Spykman is a construct of the post-war world. Unlike McInder, Spykeman did not overestimate the importance of Hartland, believing that without Rimland, Hartland could not exist. Therefore, the main goal is complete control of Rimland, then Hartland will fall. H. Mackinder's geopolitical formula: “Whoever controls Eastern Europe controls the Heartland; whoever controls the Heartland controls the World Island; whoever controls the World Island rules the world”. VS N. Spykman's geopolitical formula: “Who dominates Rimland dominates Eurasia; who dominates Eurasia holds the fate of the world in his hands”.
He divides all geopolitical history into 3 historical epochs : Pre-Columbian era. The peoples belonging to the periphery of the World Island (which includes the territory of Europe, Asia and Africa north of the Sahara), i.e. the countries of the "inner crescent" live under constant threat of conquest by the forces of the Heartland, which represents the continental masses of Eurasia, the most successful, according to Mackinder, territory for controlling the world. For the Romans, for example, these were the Germans, Huns, Alans, Parthians, etc. Later, the Golden Horde became such a threat. In the pre-Columbian era, the preponderance was on the side of the Heartland forces. Columbus era. During this period, representatives of the coastal zones of the "inner crescent" set out to conquer the unknown territories of the planet without encountering serious resistance anywhere. The balance of power in the world was changing, and the Great Discovery allowed the coastal and oceanic countries of the Inner Crescent, such as Portugal, Spain, France, Holland and Great Britain, to come to the fore. WE RECALL THE FIRST MO SYSTEM, THE TORDESILLAS MO SYSTEM (1494) - THE TREATY OF TORDESILLAS, THE DIVISION OF SPHERES OF INFLUENCE BETWEEN SPAIN AND PORTUGAL - European countries went beyond the continent !!! At the same time, control over the "axis of history" is gained by Russia, which actively begins to develop Siberia, Central Asia and the Far East. The post-Columbian era. There are no more unconquered lands. There is a constant struggle for control over this or that territory, which is reflected in the increased frequency of military conflicts. At the same time, Mackinder believed that until the early 20th century, the countries of the "axial zone" and the "outer crescent" were in a state of equilibrium. The maritime states did not possess sufficient force to invade the "axial zone" and even less to keep these strategically important areas under control, which is confirmed by the fact that attempts by the forces of maritime countries to invade the territories of Eurasia were doomed to failure (Napoleon I, Charles XII). At the same time, the maritime states themselves and their colonies were safe from the threat of continental forces due to their remoteness from them. However, according to Mackinder, in the twentieth century, the balance of power began to shift towards the Heartland states, which was due to the rapid development of transportation technologies. THIS IS WHY WE CAREFULLY ANALYZE LOGISTICS CORRIDORS!
Eastern European countries: 1. Belarus ( protests in Belarus 2006 (Cornflower Revolution) ; protests in Belarus 2020 ) 2. Ukraine ( orange revolution 2004, Maidan (2013-2014), coup d'état 2014 ) 3. Poland ( protests in 1988-1989 (dismantling the communist regime) 4. Moldova ( fragmentation of Moldova, strong autonomies ( Gagauzia and Transnistria) on the one hand and promotion of unity with Romania on the other) 5. Romania ( Romanian revolution of 1989, the fall of the communist regime of Ceausescu ) 6. Bulgaria ( 1989 revolution in Bulgaria, dismantling the communist regime ) 7. Hungary ( Hungarian uprising of 1956, dismantling the communist regime 1989) 8 -9. Czech Republic and Slovakia ( Prague Spring 1968, Velvet Revolution 1989 (dismantling the communist regime), In January 1993, Czechoslovakia split into two independent states - the Czech Republic and Slovakia ) 10. Partially Russia Task 1. Where do we now see the strongest resistance, the presence of internal conflict and/or an attempt to undermine the situation in the country? 5 min – group work
Ideas: Н. Spykman put forward the principle of “ integrated territorial control ” to be exercised by America around the world in order to prevent the strengthening of geopolitical competitors. WHAT IS THE PARALLEL WITH THE PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY? 2) Following Mackinder's idea of the confrontation of sea and land, the Hartland-USSR and oceanic America, Spykman, however, considers the geopolitical axis of the world not the fixed Hartland, but the zone of confrontation - Rimland, the border zone of land and sea, stretching along the borders of the Hartland through Europe, the Middle East, India and China ) 3) The Heartland Power (UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS HER SECURITY ZONE) is pressuring the area in an attempt to unify it under its control At THIS TIME, the US is implementing a policy of containment and, following Mahan's precepts, is using the principle of strangling a continental power by saturating Rimland with its military bases and creating military-political alliances (NATO) there. Spykman developed the idea of “anaconda” - the control and strangulation of the coastal territories of Afro-Asian, Arab countries, India and China, which can only be done by force (was an advocate of the use of force in international relations). In any case, during the Cold War, the United States acted on the basis of the Spykman concept. Relying on the military power of NATO, they entangled the USSR and its allies, i.e. the territory of the Eurasian Heartland, in a network of military and naval bases. At the same time, the American bases were located along an arc around Eurasia, which exactly repeated the contours of Spykman's Rimland.
Map with country borders up to 2014 1) NATO Battle Group Estonia, Tapa 2) NATO Battle Group in Latvia, Adazi 3) NATO Battle Group Lithuania, Rukla 4) NATO Battle Group in Polan d, Orzysz 5) NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen, Germany 6) NATO Multinational Corps Northeast in Poland, Szczecin 7) Keflavik Air Base, Iceland (NATO mission in Iceland) 8) Šauliai Air Base, Lithuani a (NATO Baltic Air Policing Mission) 9) Ramstein Air Base, Germany. This is also home to the Allied Air Command ( Aircom ). 10) Headquarters of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SHAPE), Mons, Belgium. 11) Allied Maritime Command (MARCOM) Northwood, UK 12) Allied Land Command (LANDCOM) Izmir, Turkey 13) Allied Joint Force Command Naples (JFC Naples) Naples, Italy 14) Kuchev Air Base, Albania 15) Multinational Brigade South East in Craiova Craiova, Romania. Additional NATO Small HQs 16) Bucharest, Romania 17) Bydgoszcz, Poland 18) Riga, Latvia 19) Sofia, Bulgaria 20) Tallinn, Estonia 21) Vilnius, Lithuania
Makinder put forward the idea of dividing the world into three regions through a system of concentric circles : - “Axis of history” (Pivot area) = Russia - a huge continental part of Eurasia, including the basins of the Arctic Ocean rivers, as well as two seas - the Caspian and the Aral Sea. - “Outer crescent” (Insular crescent) - territories of both Americas, Australia, Oceania, Africa south of the Sahara, Great Britain and Japan. - “ Inner crescent” = Rimland - territory sandwiched between the other two regions and stretching from Western Europe through the Near and Middle East, Indochina to Northeast Asia. Makinder identified the main pattern of classical geopolitics: geographically speaking, all states in their political strategy are doomed to constantly maneuver “around the axial state, which is always the great state” (Russia). No matter what political alliances governments and leaders create, no matter what specific issues of regional politics serve as a formal occasion for them, the strategic point of reference for all world politics is always the struggle for the "axial territory", the control over which is the key to world domination. In geopolitical terms, the confrontation of the Outer Crescent (US and UK) with the Axis of History (Heartland) and Inner Crescent ( Rimland ) coalition
Geopolitical initiative “One Belt, One Road” Land project “New Silk Road” Maritime project “New Silk Road” “String of Pearls” doctrine - a network of military bases
The Chinese leadership is negotiating with the leaders of Tajikistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where One Belt, One Road goes. Obviously, Chinese strongholds or even military bases could also emerge there to protect the trade route. China can also build bases in Pacific countries, such as Papua New Guinea, which owes Chinese banks huge sums of money - about 40% of its GDP. Negotiations to build a military base there have been going on since 2014. It is a strategically important and convenient location, opening a view of French and American naval bases and the road to Japan. China is deploying military radio jamming equipment as well as advanced anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile systems at its outposts in the Spratly Islands.
Formation of new trade corridors
History repeats itself every time ; there are global wars and a new system of international relations is formed First, the whole world has been divided and there are no free places left in it. Secondly, the slowdown (in no small part due to the noted "closure") of European, purely spatial-territorial expansion due to the completion of the actual redistribution of the world and the toughening of the struggle for the redistribution of the already divided world. The whole world is divided, and the great powers want to continue to grow along the path of expansion. Thirdly, as a result of these processes, the unstable balance between European powers was transferred to other continents of the "closed" world. Ex.: Struggle for colonies, participation in the First World War of non-European countries: USA, Japan in the early 20th century. VS Struggle for Third World countries at the beginning of the 21st century. Fourth, the transition of history to a qualitatively different stage of development, at which it ceases to be the history of Europe or the West alone and becomes truly global. Fifth, due to the above factors, we see the strengthening of REAL POLITICS in the international arena.
Lenaland - land adjacent to the Lena River basin; H. Mackinder's term; denotes all northern Eurasian territories lying east of the Yenisei River up to the Pacific coast. In his later works, Mackinder paid special attention to this area, believing that these lands belonged not to tellurocratic (land-based countries), but to thallasocratic zones of influence (sea powers). Northern Sea Route project Task 3. Divide into groups and analyze the Northern Sea Route project regarding its impact on the geopolitical map of the world - who benefits and who does not benefit? 5-7 min ( give a reasoned answer )
Anglo-Saxon geopolitics The Anglo-Saxon School in geopolitics is the thalassocratic school ( the school of domination of sea powers ). Platform for appearance : The transformation of the system of international relations and the formation of the Versailles-Washington system of centuries led to the fact that the role of the vanguard of the civilization of the Sea during this century smoothly moved first to Great Britain and then to the United States. That is why the school is developing in these states. The Anglo-Saxon geopolitical tradition is a common Anglo-American school, also called “Atlantic” - named after the Atlantic Ocean, on both sides of which the main centers of “sea power” were located. Previous world centers Tordesillas system Westphalian system The Vienna System The Versailles-Washington system The Yalta-Potsdam system The main players Spain and Portugal The Habsburg bloc (Austria and Spain ) and anti-Habsburg coalition ( Holland, Denmark, Russia, France and Sweden ) “European Concert” (Austria, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia + later France) Crimean War of 1853 - Austria, Great Britain, Prussia and France VS. Russia Great Britain, USA and France A coalition of Great Britain and the United States against revisionist forces (those whose interests were not taken into account by the existing system) the USSR and the USA Formation of capitalist and socialist blocs
A certain dualism of land and sea has always been inherent in global politics, this can be seen from the analysis of systems of international relations. HOWEVER, since the beginning of the 20th century, we have seen a turning point in global politics: with the collapse of the Vienna System of International Relations, there was a change in the centers of power and the characteristics of the system as a whole: The system stopped being Eurocentric!!! At the same time, the states of Eurasia continued to play an important role in global politics, becoming more an object than a subject. 2. The new global centers - Great Britain and the USA - were outside continental Europe, BUT they needed to justify : their status (1), their claims to Eurasia (2), political science is becoming more applied (read the book on Political Analysis by K.V. Simonov), which means the tasks of political scientists include political consulting and expertise (i.e. developing a strategy for domestic and foreign policy). 3. Since the 19th century, we have seen a serious ideologization of all global politics, which requires intellectual and ideological work from actors to justify their actions ( science works under public order ). 4. The USA initiated the attempt to combine the liberal ideals of the American president and geopolitical reality.
Anglo-Saxon geopolitics is based on the following: The key goal is Eurasia (for Mackinder and his followers Heartland, for Spykman and his followers - Rimland). Both the Heartland and Rimland concepts are aimed against the Axis state (Russia), but use different tools. For Heartland - a direct destructive influence ( financial and organizational support for the revolution of 1905, 1917 ; concession activity of A. Hammer and A. Harriman in Soviet Russia during the NEP years - an economic factor ; foreign military intervention in Russia (1918–1922/25 ). For Rimland - the creation of a belt of unstable, “problematic”, disloyal states near the borders of the Heartland. Aimed at justifying the advantages of sea powers. Today it has been continued in theoretical justification (the development of the Lenaland concept) and in practical application (its principles are being implemented by China within the framework of the “One Belt, One Road” project).
Task 4. Why did China adopt Anglo-Saxon geopolitics? Questions: Is China a state of land or sea? 2. China today is characterized as a rising power. In Gramsci's terminology, such a power must play on the opponent's field ( remember the chessboard ) in order to defeat him. That's why we view Chinese projects from the point of view of an effective or ineffective response to Anglo-Saxon geopolitics. In your opinion, is the Chinese strategy effective or not? Group work, 5-7 min
The impulse : Changing geopolitical map of the world, the rise of the Atlantic states (Great Britain and the USA) called into question the hegemony of continental Europe in world affairs ; The appearance of a new actor on the political map in 1871 (the German Empire) and his ambitions. The ideas of Ratzel and Kjellen at the beginning of the 20th century in Germany gave rise to new theories seeking to substantiate the special place of the German Empire in world and European politics.
The German scientist F. Naumann presented the idea of Central/Middle Europe during the First World War in 1915. In his work “ Mitteleuropa ”, he emphasized the need for the creation of Middle (Central) Europe by the consequences of the First World War. F. Naumann saw a structure in Europe in which there would be two “great Chinese walls” of a military and economic nature, stretching from north to south across the entire continent: one between Germany and France, and the other between Germany and Russia. He argued that the emergence of a third wall between Austria-Hungary and Germany could weaken both countries, and this could not be allowed. Naumann believed that defense needs and economic centralization would make it impossible for small countries to survive without alliances with great powers. Therefore, he persistently substantiated the idea of the need to join the Balkan states and Italy to Central Europe. In the project for Middle Europe, he proposed creating a kind of superstate ( Oberstaat ) in the form of a confederation, dealing primarily with economic and defense issues. The economic basis of the confederation should be the Central European common market. Naumann considered the formation of a supranational Central European identity to be an important condition for the implementation of his project. Naumann assigned the dominant position in this Central European community to Germany. The embodiment of Ratzel's ideas ( step 1)
The concept of a “continental block” as a continuation of the concept of territorial expansion. The heyday of German geopolitics between the two World Wars (1918–1939) was associated with the name of Karl Haushofer (1869–1946). Step 2 The key concepts in Haushofer's concept were “ blood and soil ” ( Blut und Boden), “ space and position ” ( Raum und Lage), “ power and space ” ( Macht und Raum ), “ living space ” (Lebensraum). He considered the main driving force of the state to be the provision and expansion of living space, and an important way for this was the absorption of smaller states. K. Haushofer was convinced that Germany’s “living space” should be sought in the East. On this basis, the famous idea of a “continental bloc” along the Berlin-Moscow-Tokyo axis was born. The concept of the “continental bloc” of Haushofer and his associates was based on the idea of Ratzel’s materialism about “living space”. Ratzel formulated the ideas of German geopolitics (fundamental geopolitics), Haushofer gave geopolitics the appearance of the official doctrine of the Third Reich (applied geopolitics = geostrategy).
Task 5. Karl Haushofer's concept became the rationale for German power and an alternative to the Anglo-Saxon version of the world. Why does Germany represent continental geopolitics? Group work, 7 min
Author: Karl Haushofer The basis of the concept : The development of F. Ratzel's theory of "living space", with the extension of this concept to the formula "large space" - " Grossraum ". Haushofer believed that territorial expansion was necessary, the limits of which were determined by ( a) the issues of strategic security, (b) the availability of natural resources, (c) the geographical landscape of the area, (d) the ethno-sociological and ethno-cultural structure of the population, and (e) the factors of economic geography. A pan-region is a large, continental-sized space that is politically and economically cohesive and organized. Politically, a pan-region is organized by a political idea-power (pan-idea), and economically it is an economically protected space ( autarkic space ). Such an order was to become the basis of a new world system based on panideas - perceptions formulated by civilizations and peoples in the struggle for space. In his first pan-regionalist model, Haushofer divided the world (from north to south) into 3 oriented pan-regions, each consisting of a core and a periphery: Pan-America with a core in the United States; Euro-Africa with a core in Germany; Pan-Asia with a core in Japan, with Australia included in the periphery. Each pan-region had potential economic self-sufficiency. 4. Later Haushofer proposed, as one of the options for the development of geopolitical events, a four-member division of the world. The fourth pan-region was pan-Russia with its sphere of influence in Iran, Afghanistan and Hindustan.
Germany had two paths of development: The first meant the creation of a colonial empire, which led to the construction of an ocean fleet and conflict with Great Britain; The second was to conquer lands in Eastern Europe, which led to conflict with Russia. Hitler realized the second way: to conclude an alliance with Great Britain and advance to the East at the expense of Soviet Russia. The ideological question in Europe: The Europeanization of Germany led to the emergence of the pan-European movement and the Pan-European Union project, which became the first organization seeking to unify Europe. In 1929, French Prime Minister Aristide Briand at the League of Nations proposed to consider a pan-European agreement without Britain and Soviet Russia - a question of continental Europe (against the backdrop of the deteriorating US economic situation, the transatlantic alliance was crumbling). Briand's call was well received in Germany: in 1930, the Second Pan-European Congress was held in Berlin. It resulted in a "Memorandum on the Organization of the European Federal Union Regime", which envisaged 1) collective responsibility of European governments "in the face of the danger threatening European peace"; 2) the "principle of solidarity" of European countries. "Berlin Memorandum" was sent to the European countries - members of the League of Nations in May 1930, as well as sent to Moscow to familiarize the leadership of the USSR. But already in 1931 the Pan-European project was abandoned. In 1930, the French elite was thinking not of forming a "New Entente" but of creating a Franco-German commonwealth. The structure of this "Pan-Europe" resembled the distribution of forces in the modern European Union: France as its military-political leader, Germany as the economic leader without strong military forces. T his project was supported in Germany. IMPORTANT: outside "Pan-Europe" were the three future powers of the Anti-Hitler Coalition - Great Britain, the USSR and the USA. "Pan-Europe" initially opposed these three states. In fact, it was about creating an alternative potential to them in continental Europe by the Franco-German tandem. Historical background
Hitler's foreign policy began not with calls to "get even for Versailles" but with an attempt to negotiate with the Entente powers. In 1933, the " Pact of Four " between Britain, Germany, Italy, and France. Its terms presupposed the preservation of the political articles of the Treaty of Versailles (i.e., the inviolability of postwar borders) in Western Europe and the revision of its military articles. In essence, it was a development of the "logic of Locarno": Germany was given the right to pre-armament in order to be a "European vanguard against Bolshevism" with the right to expand into Eastern Europe. The failure of the Pact of Four did not mean that the German leadership abandoned dialog with the Western powers : Anglo-German cooperation came first. Berlin hoped through interaction with Great Britain to restore its military power and secure its rear in the West for the sake of expansion in the East. British support (or at least British neutrality) allowed Germany to abrogate the military articles of the Versailles Treaty in 1935, and a year later to abolish the Rhine Demilitarized Zone. Further Anglo-German negotiations in 1937-1939 were reduced to the discussion of the "Locarno project": recognition of Germany's zone of influence in Eastern Europe in exchange for its status as the forefront of European anticommunism.
The formation and institutionalization of geopolitics as a science took place precisely in continental Europe. The main ideas of the continental school: theory of "living space" the concept of "world power" laws of territorial expansion, the idea of " middle Europe” the concept of a « continental state » the idea of a continental bloc of states What is the basic difference between Continental and Anglo-Saxon geopolitics? priority of land states (continental, but different researchers had ideas of pro-Atlanticism) or sea states (Anglo-Saxon geopolitics) ; for the continental school, adherence to the idea of the nation and national space, therefore for European states the space had cultural significance. The Anglo-Saxon school recognizes space as culturally neutral. The cultural centrism of European geopolitics is based on the strong connection of faith, soil and blood. Each nation creates its own unique territorial concept. BUT the central idea of the European school was the concept of a continental bloc!
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Anglo-Saxon geopolitics (based on history)? Group work, 7 min Task 7. What are the strengths and weaknesses of continental geopolitics (based on history)? Group work, 7 min
Give an example of the modern embodiment of Anglo-Saxon and continental geopolitics (based on real political action). Group work, 7 min
Continental geopolitics Anglo-Saxon geopolitics Reason for appearance - Changing geopolitical map of the world, the rise of the Atlantic states (Great Britain and the USA) called into question the hegemony of continental Europe in world affairs; - The appearance of a new actor on the political map in 1871 (the German Empire) and his ambitions. Since the 19th century, we have seen a serious ideologization of all global politics, which requires intellectual and ideological work from actors to justify their actions (science works under public order). Actors German Empire / Germany + Japan as an ally of Nazi Germany UK, USA Representatives F. Ratzel, R. Kjellen - fundamental (theoretical) geopolitics F. Naumann, K. Haushofer - applied (practical) geopolitics = geostrategy А. Mahan (American), Х. Makinder (British), Н. Spykman (American) - fundamental (theoretical) geopolitics G. Kissinger, Zb. Brzezinski - applied (practical) geopolitics = geostrategy Principles - priority of land states - they are subjects of global politics (but different researchers had ideas of pro-Atlanticism); - formation of self-sufficient space: adherence to the idea of the nation and national space, therefore for European states the space had cultural significance. The cultural centrism of European geopolitics is based on the strong connection of faith, soil and blood. Each nation creates its own unique territorial concept. priority of sea states - they are subjects of global politics ; control over trade routes (history proves that the power of sea powers rested on this) ; - recognizes space as culturally neutral. Ideological work took place along the lines of political institutions (implementation of the institution of American democracy, for example).
Continental geopolitics Anglo-Saxon geopolitics Activation periods (1) late 19th-early 20th century (period before World War I) (2) World War II and post-war period Practical implementation (1) In the first half of the 20th century - the justification for the eastern direction of continental geopolitics. (2)The idea of global politics (Weltpolitik) was formulated, including the overcoming of negative properties of Germany’s continentality through the construction of a navy. The task of the maritime policy of the German Empire is to gain access to the Mediterranean Sea and Asian countries. During World War II, Germany's allies were Japan in Asia, Spain and Italy in the Mediterranean. The implementation of NATO policy is based on the idea of “anaconda” ( N. Spykman ) - the control and strangulation of the coastal territories of Afro-Asian, Arab countries, India and China, which can only be done by force (was an advocate of the use of force in international relations). The main driving force in politics The main driving force of the state was the struggle to ensure and expand living space. Haushofer considered freedom from neighbors to be a sign of a truly great power, and the most effective way to expand a country is to absorb smaller states. The main instrument of policy - trade. Military actions should only provide the most favorable conditions for the creation of a planetary trading civilization. That is why after the First World War the political center of the capitalist world always coincided with the financial and economic one!!! Reasons for the alliances of Great Britain and the USA with Germany at different stages: “Eurasia cannot be strangled as long as its two largest nations – the Germans and the Russians – strive in every way to avoid an internecine conflict similar to the Crimean War or 1914”.
The Japanese school of geopolitics had few theorists, but many practical politicians. The basis of all Japanese geopolitical doctrines was the idea of expanding living space and providing the nation with resources = self-sufficient space !
The Japanese were guided by the ideas of Haushofer. The ideas of Japanese geopolitics are pan-Asianism (creation of an eastern sphere of prosperity). The goal was to fit into the model of world order promoted by Germany!!! Pan-Asianism: to gather the 8 "corners" under one roof, in other words, to expand the Japanese geospace to "Greater Asia". The basis is the whole of "yellow" Asia, which is subject to the expansion of the great white powers, except Japan, which gathers these countries and protects them. ** Pan-Asianism is an ideological and political movement calling for the unity, integration and hegemony of Asian peoples. It arose in the Japanese Empire during the reign of Emperor Showa (1926 – 1989). The main Pan-Asian slogan – Asia for Asians – called for the struggle of indigenous Asian peoples against British and American colonialism. Stages and representatives: Ikki Ita – the leader of Japanese fascism, his plan was to reorganize Japan according to the fascist type. In 1927, nationalist Japan enthusiastically welcomed the so-called Tanaka Memorandum (G. Tanaka was the Prime Minister of Japan in 1927-1929), which formulated a geopolitical program for the “development” of Manchuria, Mongolia, China, the countries of Southeast Asia and the southern seas, and geostrategic directions for Japanese conquests ( against the USA, Great Britain, and the USSR ). In the 1930s, the U. Amau doctrine appeared, named after its author, the press secretary of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which envisaged the defeat of the United States in the Pacific Ocean and the achievement of world domination by Japan, i.e. the creation of Greater East Asia. Japan must unite East Asia ( new political center). The Japanese version of Meinkampha, a plan for the reconstruction of Japan, was reissued. (2) Japanese Eurasianism ( confrontation between the USA and Great Britain = Divide and conquer ). - The main thinker is F. Konoe. He put forward 3 doctrines: New structure of foreign policy - reduction of the number of domestic political actors influencing decision-making ( unification of all parties into a single society, close to fascist ). Creation of East Asia - that is, fragmentation of the region. Alliance with the Axis powers against Great Britain and the USA. *"Berlin-Rome axis", and later "Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis» ( +Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia ). Prime Ministers F. Konoe (he is also a geopolitician and one of the authors of the doctrine of the "Great East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" - 1940) and H. Tojo (1942) based their foreign policy on the doctrine of the "Co-Prosperity Sphere", which envisaged the construction of a gigantic Japanese empire based on the ideas of pan-Asianism. In 1943, it was elevated to a state doctrine !
The concept of the "continent-state” I STAGE: Pyotr Savitsky (1895 – 1968). P.N. Savitsky recognized himself as a “Eurasian”, that is, he consciously accepted the geopolitical identity of the “civilization of Land”, which H. Mackinder contrasted with the “civilization of the Sea”. His main idea is that Russia is a special civilizational formation, defined through the quality of " middleness ". NB! Opposition to the German understanding of the middle way! If Germany's " middleness " is limited to the European context, and Europe itself is only the "western cape" of Eurasia, then Russia occupies a central position within the entire continent. II STAGE: K.A. Chkheidze (1897 – 1974) According to Chkheidze, a mainland state is born through a complex civilizational process in which spiritual and material unity is formed, which he defines as a “ community of destiny.” "The state-continent" is a civilization, conscious not only culturally, but also politically, socially, strategically. Chkheidze, as Haushofer, identifies 5 states-continents that were forming, corresponding to pan-projects: • pan-European, • pan-American, • pan-Asian, • pan-Islamic, • pan-Eurasian worlds.
Like K. Haushofer, P.N. Savitsky identified a unique “ panregion ” and found the “axis” of world geopolitics, but in comparison with the concept of K. Haushofer, he considered Russia-Eurasia to be the basis of the world system. The idea of Russia-Eurasia was the main idea of P. N. Savitsky. According to this idea, Russia is a special civilizational formation, a ” Middle land ". As a middle land, it is neither part of Europe nor a continuation of Asia. It is a special, independent spiritual and historical reality – Russia-Eurasia. Russia is not a national state, but a civilization that arose on the basis of the synthesis of Aryan-Slavic culture, Turkic nomadism and the Orthodox tradition. Introducing the term “Russia-Eurasia” into scientific circulation, Savitsky emphasized the continentality of Russia, its difference from oceanic civilizations. So, he worked in the context of continental geopolitics! Comparison with other concepts Task. Why did continental geopolitics develop in Russia if we have access to the Arctic Ocean?
Tittle of article: “Conceptualization of the concept of “state-civilization” in official documents of China and India” - RIAC
Great powers the concept was introduced by Leopold von Ranke after the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and became the basis of the Vienna System of International Relations (Concert of Europe - Russia, Prussia, Austria, Great Britain and later France). Rise of a Great Power (heyday) – Superpower. There is a block of key actors in global politics, they develop and experience crises and their positions change from system to system (meaning the system of international relations). Great Power Parameters: the ability to have a significant influence on the global architecture of international relations (important - independent foreign policy); availability of opportunities/resources to achieve one’s own interests on the world stage; awareness of one’s special role in the world (based on a long historical tradition) = mission, strategy, ideological concept, its promotion; recognition by other participants in international relations as a great power; membership in the nuclear and space club (since the Cold War, this criterion has become key). Old nuclear powers - Russia, USA, UK, France and China Young nuclear powers - India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel Space powers - Russia, USA and China (and possibly India)
Pax Romana Pax Ottomana Pax Hispanica Pax Britanica Pax Sovietica Pax Americana Pax Sinica I. Okunev identifies several types of great powers: consistent and inconsistent; emerging and growing (from regional powers); revisionist But in fact, all great powers can be characterized in the above categories only in relation to the current system of international relations!!!
Tordesillas system Westphalian system The Vienna System The Versailles-Washington system The Yalta-Potsdam system Period of actual work 1494 – 1618 1618 – 1648 Thirty Years' War in Europe on the territory of the Holy Roman Empire 1648 – 1803 1803 – 1815 Napoleonic Wars 1815 – 1914 1914 – 1918 World War I actually until the Crimean War of 1853 1919 – 1941 1941 – 1945 World War II 1945 – 1991 / н.вр. December 8, 1991 signing of the Belovezhsky Agreement and the collapse of the USSR The main players Spain and Portugal The Habsburg bloc (Austria and Spain) and anti-Habsburg coalition (Holland, Denmark, Russia, France and Sweden) “European Concert” (Austria, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia + later France) Crimean War of 1853 - Austria, Great Britain, Prussia and France VS. Russia Great Britain, USA and France A coalition of Great Britain and the United States against revisionist forces (those whose interests were not taken into account by the existing system) the USSR and the USA Formation of capitalist and socialist blocs Balance of power in the world Bipolar system Bipolar system Aspiration for a bipolar world Aspiration for a bipolar world Bipolar system The basis for the formation of a new system Spain through “marriage diplomacy” managed to seriously expand its borders in Europe and beyond + Spain conquered Portugal in 1581 = Habsburg Empire and Trends towards a unipolar world France's hegemonic ambitions and the formation of a new political landscape - France's attempt to revise the "balance of power" required the formation of an anti-French alliance Revolutions in Europe in the 1840s weakened it. On the contrary, Russia politically and economically strengthened and developed : Central Asia + Malopolskie province of Poland + Erivan and Nakhichevan khanates + territories of the Black Sea and the Arctic became the part of the Russian Empire At the initiative of Great Britain and the United States, the Soviet Union, China and Germany were excluded from the system of international relations. At the same time, Britain and France were dividing territories in the Middle East (oil-bearing areas) Germany's hegemonic ambitions coupled with the desire of Great Britain and the United States to send military forces against the Soviet Union, thus "removing" the two players from the world arena
Tordesillas system Westphalian system The Vienna System The Versailles-Washington system The Yalta-Potsdam system Key Features - Spain and Portugal were able to become centers of the international system due to military power, Navy ( period of great geographical discovery ), papal support, Internal political stability, dynastic marriages, political instability in other European states (external conjuncture). - The established system, which did not take into account the interests of other European players, required serious transformation. The legitimizing factor was the support of religious institutions. - Expansion of territories outside Europe (formation of colonies and the emergence of metropolises). A new order in Europe based on the concept of state sovereignty (not a union of nobles or landowners) and priority of nation-states. State’s monopoly to use force on its own territory = the new state-centered model of the world. The basic idea is to weaken the nobility and strengthen the central government. Was the result of the first modern diplomatic congress. The congress participants adopted a rejection of the principle of historical justification of law. That is, a new political landscape is being fixed!!! Value paradigm shifted in international relations! It was necessary to unite the Christians as Turkey and Persia were strengthening. The gradual prioritization of secular authority over religious authority State equalization ( equalizing the status of kings and emperors ). The emergence of hierarchy within the state, with the monarch at the top of the power hierarchy. - Emergence of the concept of “great power”. So, the new international order established at the Congress of Vienna was a new balance of major powers NB!!! the previous system equalized the states, as after the rise of Spain the system was sharpened to weaken the players and equalize the situation; now a new round of development - the emergence of a group of states making decisions. Formation of the world hierarchy. Eurocentricity. Multilateral diplomacy (network of ambassadors to all “great powers”). Limitations on the capabilities of an individual country ; The 19th century is the century of Russia according to British sources, because only Russia was able to increase its territories within the same continent !!!! New territories were entered on the rights of equality with others (not a colonial type of expansion). - The first system dominated by non-continental Europe : consolidation of the leadership of Great Britain, the USA and France in the new system. - Changing political landscape (collapse of empires and emergence of new states - expanding the circle of political players and the field for new redistribution). Creation of the League of Nations - the official mechanism for division the world through a system of mandates. - Discrimination of the position of the defeated states and Soviet Russia (their exclusion from the system of international relations). - The system became worldwide. The institutional expression of the increased dependence of various states was the creation and existence of the UN. - The responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security was entrusted to the Security Council, which was authorized to act on behalf of all UN members. - The growing role of TNCs. - The unstoppable process of decolonization began to grow. - Tacit mutual recognition by the superpowers of their spheres of influence. - The nuclear factor played an important role = had a stabilizing effect on the entire system. - Dollar dominance on the world arena
The system of international relations can be characterized in terms of geopolitics. Then we are talking about geopolitical balance - how power is distributed in space - this is the essence of the geopolitical system! Global geopolitical systems: antagonistic ( division of the world into opposite subsystems - macroregions : binary, like West vs. East, or tennar, as in the world-system model) concentric ( identifying the geographic center of gravity of force - Heartland, Rimland, Middle Region) polar (identification of dominant centers of power: unipolar, bipolar and multipolar) civilizational (analysis of the distribution of power between stable historical and cultural areas) regional (analysis of the distribution of power between macro- and meso-regions, identified on a geographical basis) = the essence of our discipline World regions in the system of modern international relations
The latest concept of Russian foreign policy has introduced the concept of a state-civilization into official discourse. This could be the beginning of a change in the conceptual framework of Russian foreign policy thinking. We also see the actualization of this concept in the world in the doctrines of China and India.
Theory vs. Ideology Theory requires scientific reflection and constant re-examination. Ideology can be a derivative of theory ( производной от теории ), feeding on its concepts and assumptions. But it cannot replace theory. Each political theory is a system of concepts, that is, interpretations of individual key concepts - power, authority, good, freedom, justice, interest, and the like. Major political theories offer their own interpretations of foreign policy and international relations. They can directly or indirectly set the paradigm of foreign policy and the “borders” of foreign policy thinking. liberalism, socialism and conservatism
Liberal theory can be called rationalistic. It is based on the assumption of the power of human reason, capable of taming the worst aspects of human nature - aggression, prejudice, ignorance, egoism and, as a consequence, the Hobbesian "war of all against all". The central concept is the social contract, embodied in the system of legal institutions of the state. The institutions, on the one hand, serve in the name of benefit, that is, the reduction of disasters and the growth of wealth. On the other hand, in the name of freedom from despotism. Justice is understood in terms of legal norms common to all. Accordingly, the source of the state's sovereignty is the nation as a political community of equal citizens of the state. The national state is in many ways a liberal concept that has gradually become a "world standard" for conceptualizing the state as such. The nation, as the source of sovereignty and legitimacy of power, delegates power to elected representatives who exercise it in accordance with legal norms. Has the transition to a nation-state always been peaceful?
It was rationalistic in nature. International relations are anarchic. They are the scene of the very same " war of all against all" that cannot be stopped due to the lack of a monopoly on power and the use of force by one specific country or community of such countries. This means that anarchy must also be brought under control of a rational order in the form of international institutions. They must be supported by economic interdependence, making wars unprofitable. How can we characterize the modern world order? And why is its transformation being carried out through the economy? Liberal international relations theory implies that individual countries can take the lead in solving the problem of anarchy and war. They must be democracies themselves, promote the democratization of others, guarantee the stability of world trade, organize the international community into institutions, and, if necessary, use force against violators of the new order.
Socialist theory, like liberal theory, also proceeds from the limitless possibilities of the human mind. But socialism attacks an important link in the liberal model - the capitalist economy. The bourgeoisie is the engine ( двигатель ) of liberal revolutions. It is the bourgeoisie that is “liberated” from the oppression of classes and prejudices. In international relations, socialists saw the main problem in the growing pace of imperialism. Big capital was merging with state institutions. The more developed industrial powers were actively expanding, including using military force. Capitalism gave a powerful impetus to colonialism. While gradually and unevenly forming democratic institutions at home, the capitalist powers at the same time pursued a harsh policy of expansion. Socialist interpretation of international relations The workers have no need to fight each other and nothing to divide. The solidarity of the workers is the basis of peace. The economy will be organized in the form of rational planning and distribution, and the state in such conditions will change its nature towards genuine democracy, or will wither away altogether.
Reason for the emergence Rational schemes simply do not work in practice. The price of social experiments in the form of a series of revolutions and subsequent wars is millions of human lives. Institutions must change evolutionarily, not revolutionary. You cannot thoughtlessly destroy traditions or reject authorities. In foreign policy thinking, conservatism manifested itself in a theoretical doctrine that is now commonly called realism. The basic thesis is that the anarchic nature of international relations cannot be brought under control by any rational scheme such as a universal international organization. It simply cannot withstand the pressure of contradictions between the great powers. Control of anarchy is a harmful illusion. What matters is national interests, which are determined by common sense, not rational abstraction. At the same time, the political structure of states is not taken into account by realists. Both democracies and autocracies have the same predatory instincts in the international arena. To say that democracies do not fight is deceit and hypocrisy. Realism became an influential doctrine between the world wars and especially during the Cold War. In the United States, it was combined with liberal political theory. Liberalism manifested itself as an ideological canvas, but political decisions were often dictated by the logic of realism.
Nationalism is a powerful ideological construct that has manifested itself in the political development of the overwhelming majority of modern states. Liberal Theory : In some cases it was based on political principles. In particular, it can be considered a derivative of the liberal idea of the nation as a political community. Socialist theory : Nationalism also coexisted quite well with socialism through the idea of political representation. The Soviet version of socialism added an ethnic component to the concept of nation. Soviet republics were political representations of large ethnic groups united by common socialist principles. Conservatism : Nationalism also found points of contact with conservatism. Historical and cultural traditions, or more precisely, constructed modern interpretations of such traditions, became an important source of constructing the identity of many modern national states. The key difference is that all nationalism is local, while the “big three” political theories are universal.
First, historical depth. Liberalism, socialism and conservatism often operate with a relatively short historical experience. At best, we are talking about several centuries, although their intellectual roots are much deeper. Secondly, the approach allows us to go beyond the usual scheme in which the players are national states. It is obvious that cultural and civilizational motives can act as a factor in international politics, where not only interests but also identities collide. A striking example is the states of the Islamic world. Thirdly, the civilizational view embraces both the spiritual and the material aspects of culture. The nation state is only one of the possible political forms generated by Western civilization and which in a relatively short period of time has become widespread, but not necessarily final. But the main contradiction lies in Sovereignty vs. Civilization Why ?
For a news poll, I suggest the following publics & channels: Коммерсант: https://vk.com/kommersant_ru Ведомости: https://vk.com/vedomosti РБК: https://vk.com/rbc ИНОСМИ: https://vk.com/inosmi Российская газета: https://vk.com/rgru ТАСС: https://vk.com/tassagency Газета.ру : https://vk.com/gazeta Telegram channels: Analytics: 1. https://t.me/AlekseyMukhin 2. https://t.me/infranews 3. https://t.me/dashimbayev 4. https://t.me/politjoystic 5. https://t.me/gevorgmirzaian 6. https://t.me/genshab 7. https://t.me/vyshinkv Express news summary: 1. https://t.me/breakingmash 2. https://t.me/russica2 3. https://t.me/sputniklive 4. https://t.me/rusbrief Political and economic bloc: 1. https://t.me/kommersant 2. https://t.me/banksta 3. https://t.me/papagaz 4. https://t.me/ricenoodles 5. https://t.me/lngchannel 6. https://t.me/gazmyaso Regional studies Post-Soviet space 1. https://t.me/sputniklive China : 1. https://t.me/shuohuaxia 2. https://t.me/maslovasia 3. https://t.me/agabuev Iran: https://t.me/Irna_ru https://t.me/Abbasdjuma India https://t.me/India_in_telegram Arabic Africa 1. https://t.me/arabicafrica
Thank you for your attention!
