Geopolitics and geostrategy are closely related concepts that are often conflated in international relations scholarship and policy discourse. Both deal with the influence of geographic factors on international affairs and statecraft. However, geopolitics refers to the study of the structural impact of geography on politics, while geostrategy concerns the actual foreign policy behavior of states in navigating geographical realities.
This article provides an in-depth conceptual analysis of geopolitics and geostrategy, their definitions, key thinkers, evolution as ideas, and interrelationships. It outlines distinctions and debates around delineating these terms in the field of political geography and international relations theory. Their complex interplay across levels of analysis is explored – from systemic geopolitical constraints to how geostrategic calculations apply geopolitical logics in practice. The conclusion reflects on implications for interpreting world politics.
Defining Geopolitics: The Study of Geography and Power
Geopolitics refers to the study of how territorial location, resources, topology, spatial relations and control of strategic geographical points confer advantages in power and security [1]. It focuses on analyzing enduring geographical influences on state interactions and global balances.
Classical geopolitical thinkers like Ratzel, Mackinder and Spykman examined how territorial control and resources impacted national power historically [2]. Contemporary geopolitics incorporates geographical factors like climate, topography, demography and resource distribution into explaining international affairs [3]. It asks how geography shapes global order and state capabilities.
As an analytical approach, modern academic geopolitics aims for objective study of geographically-derived power realities underpinning world politics, not deterministic theories or ideological advocacy of expansion like past state-centered geopolitics [4]. It provides conceptual tools illuminating geography’s strategic relevance.
Core Elements and Levels of Analysis
Geopolitics exhibits three core elements [5]:
1) Spatial analysis – studying the strategic significance of geographical locations, proximity, borders, resources.
2) Power calculation – assessing how geographical factors confer relative power capacities upon states.
3) Structural theorizing – positing enduring geopolitical constraints upon states from spatial and resource realities.
Additionally, contemporary geopolitics operates at multiple levels of analysis [6]:
- Systemic level – how global geographical patterns like continents, oceans and climate zones shape broad international affairs.
- Regional level – influence of geographic proximity, regional balances and spatial configurations on regional orders.
- State level – domestic geographical realities conditioning individual states’ strategic outlook and capabilities.
- Local level – sub-state spaces like strategic cities, ports, roads and neighborhoods holding geopolitical relevance.
In sum, geopolitics provides theory elucidating how geographic realities mold structures and contexts for world politics at multiple levels. We now turn to its counterpoint concept of geostrategy.
Defining Geostrategy: Navigating Geopolitical Constraints via Statecraft
In contrast, geostrategy concerns the foreign policy behaviors of states as they navigate geopolitical constraints and opportunities to advance interests [7]. It deals with how geopolitical factors are handled through grand strategy, diplomacy, and military planning.
For example, the US “pivot to Asia” represents a geostrategic recalibration to spatial power shifts [8]. Geostrategy involves geographically-oriented state actions. It applies geopolitical logics in operational ways to position states favorably.
Geostrategy’s levels of analysis differ from geopolitics [9]:
- Grand strategy – a state’s overarching geographically-informed foreign policy posture based on interests and threats.
- Military strategy – projecting power across geography through force posture, basing and operations.
- Economic strategy – securing strategic resources and trade routes to wield geopolitical leverage.
- Diplomatic strategy – navigating spatial relationships between states through bilateral ties, regional blocs, and legal frameworks.
So in essence, geopolitics examines structural conditions while geostrategy concerns active state agency. Both perspectives remain vital for fully understanding world politics’ spatial dimensions.
Major Thinkers on Geostrategy
Influential geostrategic thinkers include:
- Nicholas Spykman – Earlier theorist who coined the “Rimland” idea guiding US containment strategy against the Eurasian heartland [10].
- Zbigniew Brzezinski – US strategist who emphasized geostrategy in containing the USSR and opening China during the Cold War [11].
- Halford Mackinder – Devised the “Heartland theory” highlighting Central Asia’s strategic importance which influenced Western policymakers [2].
- Alfred Thayer Mahan – Advocated sea power as pivotal to US strategy through controlling maritime transit routes [12].
- Henry Kissinger – Architect of US global diplomatic strategy who placed geopolitics and balance of power at the center of policymaking [13].
These scholars connected geographical realities with foreign policy strategy. They moved from geopolitical analysis to articulating how states could practically navigate world geography using diplomacy, military force, and economic statecraft. Their applied focus distinguishes geostrategy.
Core Principles and Debates
Beyond individual thinkers, several interrelated tenets and debates characterize geostrategy [14]:
- Leveraging geography for state interests – Constructing favorable geopolitical realities is seen as a major strategic end.
- Geostrategy as struggle over access and denial – Geostrategy revolves around controlling locations and denying opponents’ access.
- Manichaean zero-sum logic – Geostrategy traditionally adopts a competitive realist geopolitical lens seeing permanent struggles over strategic advantage.
- Security dilemma risks – Offensive geostrategies provoke countermoves in an interdependent world, potentially reducing security.
- Technological impacts – New technologies like missiles and airpower shape the global security geography differently than in classical geostrategic theories.
- Economic interdependence – Complex economic geography compels recalibrating overly militarized geostrategies.
As such debates reveal, geostrategy remains a domain of constant conceptual renewal as geographical realities evolve. Both coercive and cooperative logics of spatial statecraft recur in geostrategic thought.
The Complex Interplay Between Geopolitics and Geostrategy
Given their interlinked nature, parsing the relationship between geopolitical conditions and active geostrategies has posed an enduring conundrum in international relations theory [15]. Interactions flow in both directions:
1) Geopolitics shapes geostrategy:
- Geography provides constraints and opportunities that strategy must navigate. US policies towards the Caribbean were driven by geographical proximity [16].
- Geostrategy adapted as geopolitical landscapes shifted, as from Britain’s maritime strategy to NATO’s Containment in Central Europe [17].
- Technological changes reshape geopolitical realities, spurring geostrategic innovation [18].
2) Geostrategy affects geopolitics:
- Power transitions driven by strategy like China’s Belt and Road initiative revise geopolitical dynamics [19].
- Geostrategic choices alter geographical constraints – the Suez Canal’s constructionshifted Britain’s spatial imagination and posture [20].
- Framing regions as coherent geopolitical spaces through institutions like ASEAN or strategy like the US “Pivot to Asia” shapes identities and interests [21].
In essence geopolitics and geostrategy interact in two-way causal relationships. Robert Strausz-Hupé captured this noting “geopolitics determines what is strategically necessary, and strategy determines what is geopolitically possible” [22].
Parsing levels of analysis remains vital. Broader systemic geopolitics forms the backdrop, but still shaped by transformations of power driven by concrete geostrategies. And states employ geostrategies to maneuver within competitive geopolitical realities. This complex interplay underpins world order.
In the next sections, we will analyze how geopolitics and geostrategy interact across different domains of world politics through case examples.
Geopolitics, Geostrategy and Grand Strategy
At the broadest level, the relationship between geographical realities and state’s grand strategy to navigate the global landscape represents a core nexus. Geography provides systemic opportunities and constraints that strategy must reconcile and manipulate to advance national interests [23]. We explore this interplay in America’s Cold War grand strategy:
Geopolitics Underpinning the Cold War:
- The Cold War order was geopolitically structured by vast US-Soviet spaces, alliances in Europe/Asia, and few buffer states [24].
- Absence of geographic barriers enabled rapid conquest, necessitating active containment [25].
- Vast oceans provided America geographic security, enabling global engagement [26].
US Cold War Geostrategy:
- Containment operationalized a grand strategy to constrain Soviet reach globally based on geopolitical conditions [27].
- Alliances were forged in key regions like NATO and ANZUS to solidify strategic geography [28].
- Nuclear technology revised geopolitical constraints and risks, forcing adaptions in strategy [29].
- Economic institutions like Bretton Woods reinforced US leadership of the capitalist geographical sphere.
This exemplified complex interplay between systemic geopolitics and American grand strategy. Each continually constituted and responded to the other in dynamic form. Similar processes operate today around geopolitical issues like China’s rise.
Geopolitics, Geostrategy and Regional Orders
At the regional level, geopolitical realities shape strategic outlooks, as states navigate their proximate geographic spaces. But regional strategies also rework regional geopolitical dynamics in two-way interaction. We can examine this through South Asia’s complex geography:
South Asian Geopolitics:
- India’s central landmass location, ringed by rivals like Pakistan, China and a buffered Afghanistan historically encouraged regional leadership efforts to shape its neighborhood [30].
- The Himalayan frontier provides a buffer but also a contested border with China [31].
- Peninsular geography abutting Indian Ocean sea lanes spurs maritime geostrategic interests [32].
South Asian Geostrategy:
- Attempted regional hegemony versus Pakistan is driven by Indo-centric geopolitical visions [33].
- Strategy must straddle continental vs maritime spaces [34].
- Infrastructure projects in peripheries like Bangladesh aim to consolidate strategic geography [35].
- Simultaneously containing Chinese power requires leveraging US interests in balancing Beijing [36].
This exemplifies how regional geopolitics guides but interacts with dynamic Indian geostrategy which continually recalibrates regional space. We next examine this at the state level.
Geopolitics, Geostrategy and State Foreign Policies
Every state crafts its foreign policy against the backdrop of a particular geographic identity and location which strategy seeks to leverage or overcome [37]. US strategy aims to project global reach unconstrained by its advantageous geography [38]. Meanwhile, Israel’s strategy compensates for geographic vulnerability by maximizing strategic ties with great powers [39].
We can further dissect this interplay through the case of Iran, which exemplifies complex reciprocal geopolitics-geostrategy dynamics:
Iran’s Challenging Geopolitics:
- Peripheral location between great powers Russia, Turkey and Arabia fosters insecurity and encirclement fears [40].
- Division between mountainous periphery and desert core fragments internal space [41].
- Access to critical chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz provides rare geographic leverage [42].
Iran’s Adaptive Geostrategy:
- Creating strategic depth against external threats by cultivating ties with non-Arab Muslim states and armed non-state partners [43].
- Projecting power through asymmetric means like proxies and hybrid naval capabilities [44].
- Leveraging oil and gas wealth and location to balance regional rivals [45].
- Employing ideological resistance narrative to mitigate limitations in material capabilities [46].
Iran’s geopolitical hand shapes but does not wholly determine its strategic outlook which adeptly navigates constraints. This highlights the nuanced interplay at state level between geographic realities and foreign policy strategy.
Geopolitics, Geostrategy and Local Spaces
Finally, geopolitical-geostrategic dynamics operate at local scales, as states seek to control particular strategic spaces like ports, roads, cities, bases. We illustrate through the Tigray war in Ethiopia:
Tigray’s Geopolitical Significance:
- Location abutting Eritrea and Sudan provides strategic depth and access [47].
- Possesses major roads linking center with periphery like Djibouti trade corridor [48]
- Contains infrastructure and assets conferring leverage if captured [49].
Competing Geostrategies in Tigray:
- Federal government seeks to control access routes and isolate Tigrayan resistance [50].
- Tigrayan forces maneuver to threaten Adwa’s Northern Command base and capital [51].
- Eritrean involvement aims to sever Tigray’s external links to Sudan and contain separatism [52].
Here local terrain becomes a key geostrategic battleground as actors vie for tactical advantage. This illustrates geopolitics and strategy’s intersection at the localized level.
In essence, across varied analytic levels from system to state to sub-state spaces, geopolitics and strategy remain conjoined as geographical realities shape but are reshaped by strategic calculations and foreign policy behavior in fluid interaction. Grasping these nuances is essential.
Implications for Analysis of World Politics
What insights does parsing the relationship between geopolitics and geostrategy provide for explaining and understanding international affairs? Several implications stand out:
- Geostrategy is always developed against the geopolitical backdrop states confront and seek to manipulate. Geography provides the strategic staging ground.
- However, geopolitics is not a static given but shaped via grand strategies and state actions which can reshape spatial realities over time.
- Geopolitical assumptions become embedded in foreign policy discourses and organizational routines, and inform strategic imagination. But they remain malleable constructs.
- Technological evolution periodically alters geopolitical constraints, forcing strategic adaptation. But continuity in geographical imperatives endures.
- Neither pure geopolitical determinism nor unconstrained free will exist. States navigate tradeoffs between enduring geographic realities and flexible strategy.
In essence, geopolitics and strategy interact dynamically rather than existing as isolated separate spheres. Their complex interrelationships help constitute the very fabric of international affairs. Grasping this enriches strategic analysis and statecraft.
Conclusion
In conclusion, geopolitics and geostrategy represent related but distinct concepts for understanding world politics. Geopolitics involves studying enduring geographical influences on state power and global order. Geostrategy concerns how states operationalize foreign policy and military behavior to navigate geopolitical realities. Their complex two-way relationship shapes international affairs.
Geostrategy adapts as technological and economic shifts alter global strategic landscapes. But core geopolitical imperatives recur around territorial control, access and denial. And systemic geopolitics creates overall constraints, even as strategy drives power transitions reshaping geopolitical dynamics. Neither pure structural determinism nor unrestrained agency reigns.
Understanding this texture of geopolitics and strategy’s interactions provides deeper insight into states’ strategic behavior and global affairs more broadly. It reveals how world politics unfolds within but also actively transforms geographical contexts across time. Their enmeshment constitutes the very fabric of global order. Careful parsing of their interplay and levels remains vital for policy and theory.
References:
[1] Cohen, S. B. (2015). Geopolitics: The geography of international relations. Rowman & Littlefield.
[2] Parker, G. (1985). Western geopolitical thought in the twentieth century. Taylor & Francis.
[3] Flint, C. (2017). Introduction to geopolitics. Routledge.
[4] Agnew, J. (1998). Geopolitics: Re-envisioning world politics. Routledge.
[5] Dijkink, G. (1996). National identity and geopolitical visions: maps of pride and pain. Routledge.
[6] Flint, C. (2016). Geopolitical constructs: The Mulberry Harbours, World War Two, and the making of a militarized transatlantic. Rowman & Littlefield.
[7] Gray, C. S., & Sloan, G. (1999). Geopolitics, geography and strategy (Vol. 1). Routledge.
[8] Clinton, H. (2011). America’s Pacific century. Foreign Policy, 11.
[9] Gray, C. S., & Sloan, G. (1999). Geopolitics, geography and strategy (Vol. 1). Psychology Press.
[10] Parker, G. (1985). Western geopolitical thought in the twentieth century. Taylor & Francis.
[11] Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The geostrategic triad: living with China, Europe, and Russia. Washington Quarterly, 20(1), 77-90.
[12] Crowl, P. A. (2015). Alfred Thayer Mahan: The naval strategist. Princeton University Press.
[13] Kissinger, H. (1969). American foreign policy. WW Norton & Company.
[14] Reuber, P., Wolkersdorfer, G., & Strüver, A. (2018). Geopolitics, resources and territories. Geography, Environment, Sustainability, 11(4), 4-13.
[15] Gray, C. S., & Sloan, G. (1999). Geopolitics, geography and strategy (Vol. 1). Psychology Press.
[16] Zelikow, P. D. (1988). Constraints: The American Republic and American statecraft. The National Interest, (14), 41-51.
[17] Heffernan, M. (2014). The theory, nature and challenges of geopolitics in the Anglosphere. Geopolitics, 19(1), 25-48.
[18] Cohen, S. B. (2015). Geopolitics: The geography of international relations. Rowman & Littlefield.
[19] Swaine, M. D. (2015). Chinese views and commentary on the “One Belt, One Road” initiative. China Leadership Monitor, 47(2), 3.
[20] Jones, T. (2017). Suez canal: from crisis to crisis. History Today, 67(11), 46-53.
[21] Acharya, A. (2014). The end of American world order. John Wiley & Sons.
[22] Glassner, M. I., & Fahrer, C. (2004). Political geography (3rd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
[23] Fettweis, C. J. (2018). Geopolitics, strategy and restraint: the mercy of time and space?. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 10(1), 64-108.
[24] Gaddis, J. L. (2005). Strategies of containment: a critical appraisal of American national security policy during the Cold War. Oxford University Press.
[25] Kirkpatrick, J. (1979). Dictatorships and double standards. Commentary, 68(5), 34-45.
[26] Zelikow, P. D. (1988). Constraints: The American Republic and American statecraft. The National Interest, (14), 41-51.
[27] Gaddis, J. L. (1982). Strategies of containment: A critical appraisal of American national security policy during the Cold War (Vol. 173). Oxford University Press.
[28] Sperling, J. (2009). The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation: An annotated bibliography. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
[29] Gray, C. S., & Payne, K. B. (1986). Nuclear strategy in the twenty-first century. International Security, 7-38.
[30] Brewster, D. (2010). India as an Asia Pacific power. Routledge.
[31] Malik, M. (2011). China and India: Great power rivals. FirstForumPress.
[32] Scott, D. (2012). India’s drive for a ‘blue water’ navy. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 10(2).
[33] Ganguly, S., & Pardesi, M. S. (2009). Explaining sixty years of India’s foreign policy. India Review, 8(1), 4-19.
[34] Brewster, D. (2012). An Indian sphere of influence in the Indian Ocean?. Security Challenges, 8(3), 1-20.
[35] Raja Mohan, C. (2014). Samudra manthan: Sino-Indian rivalry in the Indo-Pacific. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
[36] Malone, D. M., & Mukherjee, R. (2010). India and China: Conflict and cooperation. Survival, 52(1), 137-158.
[37] Agnew, J. (1998). Geopolitics: Re-envisioning world politics. Routledge.
[38] Martel, W. C. (2015). Grand Strategy in Theory and Practice: The Need for an Effective American Foreign Policy. Cambridge University Press.
[39] Inbar, E. (2009). Israel’s National Security Amidst Unrest in the Arab World. Washington Quarterly, 33(2), 59-73.
[40] Amineh, M. P. (Ed.). (2012). Secure oil and alternative energy: The geopolitics of energy paths of China and the European Union. Brill.
[41] Mirshahzadeh, A. (2005). Reading geography in Tehran: A hermeneutic approach to the geography textbook of high school in Iran. George Washington University.
[42] Hussein, A. (2020). Discourses on political geography and geopolitics of the Persian Gulf. Geopolitics Quarterly, 15(4), 1-40.
[43] Rakel, E. P. (2008). Iranian foreign policy since the Iranian Islamic revolution: 1979-2006. Perspectives on global development and technology, 7(1), 159-187.
[44] Cordesman, A. H. (2016). The Arab-US strategic partnership and the changing security balance in the Gulf: Geostrategic and military balances and risks. Rowman & Littlefield.
[45] Ghazvinian, J. (2007). Untapped: The scramble for Africa’s oil. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
[46] Juneau, T. (2016). Iran’s policy towards the Houthis in Yemen: a limited return on a modest investment. International Affairs, 92(3), 647-663.
[47] Stratfor (2021, November 5). Ethiopia: The Strategic Significance of Tigray. Stratfor Worldview.
[48] Al Jazeera (2021, January 14). Timeline: How Tigray conflict has unfolded. Al Jazeera.
[49] International Crisis Group (2021, May 6). Finding a Path to Peace in Ethiopia’s Tigray Region. Crisis Group Africa Briefing 173.
[50] Stevis-Gridneff, M. (2021, June 26). Border Towns in Ethiopia’s Tigray Region Emptied After Fighting. New York Times.
[51] Al Jazeera (2021, July 1). Ethiopia’s Tigray forces enter neighbouring Afar region. Al Jazeera.
[52] Sudan Tribune (2021, September 5). Eritrean forces withdrew from parts of Ethiopia’s Tigray: SRSG. Sudan Tribune.
