Author: Phil Kelly – 17/02/2021
Classical geopolitics defines as the study of locations and positions of states, regions, and resources that affect a state’s foreign actions and policies. It arrives with two functions: first, it displays a spatial setting or platform for states persons and students to examine and to act upon international relations from a geographical perspective. Second, accompanying this setting is an assortment of theories that adhere to the classical definition, the author having located more than sixty (Kelly 2016, 83-135). For instance, applying the “shatterbelt” thesis, of two levels of conflict coming together in a region, the local with the strategic, offers platform and theory for presenting a deeper understanding into the Ukraine civil war. The utility of this spatial model rests simply on common sense, we as humans being naturally impacted by our environments, and nations impacted similarly.
Let me state my respect for critical geopolitics, and in particular, for its focus upon the normative and upon the de-constructing of elites’ motivations. I would prefer attaching these attributes more strongly to the classical as well. But, alas, I cannot, for the two geopolitical versions point to distinctive approaches and levels-of-analyses that cannot meld, at least, until some sophisticated mathematical model can somehow be devised that rests well-beyond my skill.
Continue reading, please download the Analytical Dossier AD_05_2021 ISSN 2704-6419
Other articles by Prof Phil Kelly published in Vision & Global Trends. International Institute for Global Analyses’ website:
- Classical Geopolitics Continues under Attack
- The Geopolitics of Global Scarcity
- Is a New Multilateralism Transitioning into Global Politics?
- Rescuing Classical Geopolitics: Separating Geopolitics from Realism
- American Sea Power. The Inescapable but Imperative Global Stabilizer
- The United States and the Geopolitics of Water