A new approach to Geopolitics?
Existing theories have lost their relevance in the 21st Century
The worsening of relations between the West and Russia, marked indelibly by the 2022 war in Ukraine, revealed the mood of revanchism that has been developing within various social strata and scientific circles in Russia during the second half of the 1990s.
In the Russian discourse, while the alternative structures to the UN, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, and other organizations were not revealed nor demonstrated systematically. The idea of "multipolarity", though revealed, had not yet been put into action. China and Turkey took advantage of this situation to improve their positions. However, among these post-imperial states, the rebellion against the "end of history" was initiated by Russia.
Russian scientific and political circles emphasize that the war was a "decision made to protect Russia." The general basis of these views is Alexander Dugin's book "Geopolitics", in which the author cites the views of geopolitical scientists such as Friedrich Naumann, Halford Mackinder, Alfred Mahan, and Nicholas Speakman. It can be seen that the fear of the "anaconda" plan lies at the bottom of the war "being waged for Russia's protection", which is emphasized by Russian circles.
So, the question is, is the "anaconda", which was used during the American Civil War and was used as a prototype during the "Cold War" for the purpose of mutual deterrence, still alive? The answer is simple. Many geopolitical theories were developed before the end of the 20th century, and as a result of technological innovations and challenges presented by climate change in the century that followed. Undeniably, the geopolitical landscape of the new world has changed.
Why didn’t history end?
Among the countries with a post-imperial legacy (Russia, China, Iran, and Turkey) that Jeffrey Mankoff noted in his book Empires of Eurasia How Imperial Legacies Shape International Security, it was Russia that began to rebel against the unipolar world order. The main reason for this was that Washington demonstrated its unpreparedness for global hegemony after its victory in the Cold War.
Contrary to the scenarios in Japan and Germany, where American reconstruction efforts played an integral role in raising the standards of living, Washington did not do enough to help Russia in recovering from the collapse of the Soviet Union. As a result, Soviet nostalgia turned into Russian revanchism.
With Germany and Japan, after the victory in the Second World War, relatively clear and rapid actions were taken. As a result, 20 years after the war, the social consciousness, which achieved rapid development, rejected imperialist views. This did not happen within Russia. There might be a number of reasons why Washington held back.
Firstly, the hegemonic position made it necessary for the U.S. to allocate billions of funds to search for allies and develop cooperation to withstand the USSR during Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no longer any ideological competitor for America. China had yet to achieve its economic rise during this period and did not perceive the U.S. as a competitor. Secondly, the Russian economy required much more funds than those of Germany and Japan. This can be explained by the long-term economic stagnation and the vastness of the territory. Thirdly, it should be recognized that the USSR was able to show serious competition to the U.S. in the race for hegemony. For example, the launch of the first satellite, the flight of the first Soviet man in space, and the Cuban crisis caused real concern for the United States. Fourthly, it can be explained by the fact that Russia is in a different civilization (Orthodox) than the Western civilization (Protestant-Catholic).
Another sign that the U.S. was not ready for unipolar hegemony is that Washington itself showed that it was able to violate international norms. First, in 1999, Yugoslavia was bombed despite Russia's objection at the UN. Two years later, a change of government was carried out by force on the territory of sovereign Afghanistan. Finally, in 2003, the legitimate leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was overthrown by military force and brought to court in the United States. All these events serve as a basis for Russian politicians and analysts to justify actions in Ukraine after 2022. That is to say, "The USA can do it, why can't we do it?"
The gaps in economics and social sciences that arose after the collapse of the USSR were not filled. Neither the economy nor the social sciences were developed in the USSR for about 70 years. In the end, this was noticed in two cases. First, it was not possible to create a healthy economic environment through privatization. Second, by the end of the 1990s, Dugin's Geopolitics became an outlier in this direction, almost without serious scientific-ideological competition.
Old geopolitics
British Halford Mackinder first proposed the “Heartland” theory. According to this Mackinder, the central regions of modern Russia are the epicenter of world politics. From the point of a geopolitician, “Whoever rules Eastern Europe rules the Heartland. Whoever rules the Heartland rules the World Island. Whoever rules the island of the world, rules the world.” It is noted that in order to contain the state that was established in the Heartland (at that time, the USSR, now the territories of Russia), it is necessary to keep it as far away from the sea as possible. For this purpose, it is proposed to create states that can serve as a “cordon sanitaire” in the peripheral regions. It is this theory that informs the fears of Russia’s political elite and academics regarding the inclusion of the East European states into the NATO and EU.
Secondly, another geopolitical theorist, Friedrich Neumann, put forward the idea of "Mitteleuropa" (Middle Europe) to oppose countries such as Russia, England, and the U.S., appointing Germany as the main power. Brzezinski also noted in his work The Grand Chessboard that the axis of Germany, Poland and Ukraine can occupy an important place in the world order. However, such an alliance can push Russia far behind European politics, which may cause concern for Moscow.
Finally, Mahan's and Speakman's ideas on the effective use of maritime hegemony in geopolitical competition were able to influence the Russian geopolitical public. According to Mahan's "anaconda" concept, which was developed during the North American Civil War, if a country's sea trade ports were blocked, the interruption of trade would lead to economic ruin for that country. Mahan's views, later supplemented by Speakman, were very useful for U.S. geopolitical strategy during the Cold War.
As a result, it is natural that the threat to Russia's free access to the Black Sea, increasing due to the psychological trauma left in the Russian political society from the defeat in the Cold War and the Khasavyurd agreements, is seen as a threat to statehood. It is because the Black Sea ports are the only Russian ports in warm waters. But the question is, how close are geopolitical theories to reality in the modern world?
A new paradigm of geopolitics
Although the material trade has not moved to the cyber world (but we must not forget that 3D printing is developing), it is possible to do many things virtually, such as service provision, licensing, sales of patented innovations, and freelancing. For example, the British company ARM is known in the semiconductor market mainly for licensing its microprocessors. Large companies in America, such as Nvidia and AMD, have also outsourced material production and focused on design and management.
The emergence of virtual roads that allow doing business remotely undermines the foundations of the “anaconda principle” of geopolitics. That is, by blocking the seaports of a country and stifling its trade, the economy cannot be completely derailed. One of the conditions for this is that this country should have high technological development and strongly protected copyright. In this case, the country can partially save its exports due to trade in the cyber world.
Also, the development of air transport has a special place. Despite the high cost of this type of transport, it is possible to maintain the income of the country's economy through the export of rare and expensive equipment, technologies, and other products. On that condition, the state abandons the worldwide mass sale of products scientifically promoted as in Paul Krugman's "new trade theory". It is a natural response that a state resorts to making use of its air connectivity if its seaports are blocked.
Although the above two factors do not completely destroy the idea of "anaconda" strategy, they reduce its effectiveness in geopolitical competition.
The second factor that prompts the revision of geopolitical scientific theories is climate change. In particular, the crisis in world trade caused by the Evergreen cargo ship stuck in the Suez Canal has ignited ideas about climate change and the possibilities of trade across the Arctic Ocean. Similarly, the opening of the possibility of free navigation across the Arctic Ocean may affect the geopolitics of some countries. For example, the independence movement of Greenland and Scotland may get new opportunities. Norway will assume some of the duties of NATO that Poland is currently performing. That is, it acts as a deterrent to Russia's threats from the north.
The largest geopolitical tectonic shift will occur in Russia. The opening of Russia's huge borders in the north can be both an opportunity and a threat to the country. If Russia can develop an Arctic Ocean fleet, it will be able to freely cross the seas, as it has been waiting for a long time. However, if fleet construction fails, Russia's northern ports will be vulnerable to non-nuclear conflicts. This scenario is actually more dangerous for Russia than a European land invasion.
Secondly, the movement of people is changing from the east-west vector to the south-north vector. Factors such as drought, desertification, and improper use of water initially cause internal economic, political, and military crises in the country, which then motivates migration. For example, the improper use of water to irrigate grain fields in Syria has brought the country's nature into crisis. At first, it was manifested as economic difficulties and then into a military crisis followed by a migration crisis in Turkey. Similar situations exist to the west of the African continent. In circumstance, the country that will receive the biggest impact will be the USA. The increased migration flow across Central America and Mexico, as well as the possibility of unrest in Mexico, poses a serious threat to the geopolitical stability of the Americas.
No matter how “constant” the processes of conflict and peace have been throughout history, it cannot be denied that the current geopolitical theories of the 20th century are outdated. New challenges have since emerged and new look at geopolitics is well in order.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s alone and do not reflect the position of Eurasian Affairs.