Geopolitics

How geography shapes strategy, competition, and systemic power in the 21st century

Strategic Context

Geopolitics examines how geography affects power—politically, economically, and militarily—across regions and eras. But in 2025, it is no longer just a theory of empires and landmasses. It is a living framework: influencing semiconductor supply chains, sea lane chokepoints, drone corridors, and infrastructure diplomacy. From Arctic military basing to EU energy dependencies, geopolitics has re-emerged as the grammar of global rivalry.

Within the European theater, geopolitical logic has become inseparable from defense planning, alliance posture, and technological sovereignty. The term is widely used—but inconsistently applied. This article clarifies its historical origins, schools of thought, and practical relevance today.

Origins of Geopolitical Thought

The term geopolitics was coined by Swedish political scientist Rudolf Kjellén in the early 20th century. Building on the earlier ideas of Friedrich Ratzel, Kjellén treated the state as a biological organism whose survival and power depended on its spatial environment.

Early geopolitical theory was deeply influenced by imperial and strategic military thinking, particularly during the rise of great powers in Europe. It became a prominent mode of analysis in Germany during the Weimar Republic and Nazi period, where it was co-opted into doctrines of territorial expansion (e.g. Lebensraum). After World War II, the field’s reputation suffered due to its ideological misuse.

However, in the English-speaking world, geopolitics retained a broader and more analytical character. It became associated with figures such as Halford Mackinder, Nicholas Spykman, and later Zbigniew Brzezinski, who advanced models linking geography to strategic control and global influence.

Classical Models

Halford Mackinder: The Heartland Theory

In 1904, British geographer Halford Mackinder proposed the "Heartland Theory" in his paper The Geographical Pivot of History. He argued that the control of Eastern Europe was key to global domination:

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the world."

The Heartland—a vast interior landmass spanning Russia and Central Asia—was seen as strategically invulnerable to maritime powers. Mackinder's view framed continental land control as the basis of world power.

Nicholas Spykman: Rimland Theory

Responding to Mackinder, Dutch-American strategist Nicholas Spykman argued that it was not the Heartland, but the surrounding coastal areas—the "Rimland"—that held the key. He believed control of the Eurasian periphery was essential to containing central powers and ensuring naval dominance.

Spykman's ideas directly influenced U.S. Cold War containment policy, NATO's strategic posture, and modern alliance thinking in the Indo-Pacific.

Cold War and Post-Cold War Applications

During the Cold War, geopolitical thinking was formalized into strategic doctrines. The division of Europe, the arms race, and proxy conflicts were all interpreted through a geopolitical lens.

Post-1991, many assumed the "end of history" had rendered geopolitics obsolete. But by the mid-2000s, Russia's actions in Georgia, China's naval expansion, and U.S. interventions made it clear: geography and power still mattered. In fact, they had returned with a more complex, multipolar form.

Critical Geopolitics

Emerging in the 1990s, critical geopolitics challenged traditional models. Scholars like Gearóid Ó Tuathail (Gerard Toal) emphasized how maps, media, and political narratives shape perceptions of space and threat.

This school sees geopolitics not as neutral science, but as constructed discourse—used by states and elites to justify policies and project influence. While useful for deconstructing dominant narratives, critical geopolitics has been critiqued for downplaying material and military realities.

Contemporary Relevance (2020s)

In the 2020s, geopolitics operates on multiple planes:

Geoeconomics: China's Belt and Road, strategic investment, supply chain dominance
Energy Politics: Pipelines, LNG terminals, dependency reduction, Arctic exploration
Military Geography: Forward basing, drone corridors, anti-access zones
Legal Space: Maritime claims, exclusive economic zones, weaponized international law

The EU's push for "strategic autonomy," NATO's eastern deployments, and U.S.-China tensions in the Indo-Pacific are not isolated events. They are expressions of geopolitical competition refracted through new tools and terrains.