States are best understood as living beings, and like any living organism, they require

space to grow and will compete with other living beings. The notion that the state requires

“living space” (a certain amount of resources and land) for the nation to thrive is especially

prevalent in South American geopolitics (Sidaway, 2001). However, because of its past

associations with disreputable and discredited theories and ideologies, the term "geopolitics" has

remained ambiguous in definition and misused in application. According to Kelly (2019),

geopolitics has recently experienced at least two confusing and erroneous meanings that have

seriously undermined its legitimacy: (1) a "power politics" and realpolitik description of alleged

manipulation of the larger nations, most likely derived from the mistaken belief that geopolitics

resides within the realist international-relations model that emphasizes "power"; and (2) once

more, an image of catastrophe and crisis—wars and threats of wars, and other economic and

political crises.

The status quo raises a number of critical questions, including whether geopolitics

belongs to the realist international-relations model or not. To answer this question, there needs to

be some considerations. Defining what geopolitics is a good first step but as a concept that

“tends to change as historical periods and structures of world order change,” as Tuathail (1998)

had described, some authors prefer providing descriptions of the theories and concepts related to

it and identifying variables instead.

In “Geopolitics: Twentieth Century Spectre,” written by James Sidaway in 2001, the

author argued that the new century appears to be haunted by the dark shadows of the past, and

geopolitics looms large at the dawn of a new millennium. The author discussed certain key

characteristics of geopolitical ideas, such as Mackinder's Heartland Theory, which argued that

whoever dominates Eastern Europe controls the Heartland. Mackinder also claimed to have
identified the locations of greatest global strategic importance, control of which would give any

great power a key to global power. He referred to this as the “pivot area.” The term “heartland”

was appropriated by German geopolitics in the 1930s and 1940s, and it served as a backdrop to

Cold War American strategy from the late 1940s to the last decade of the twentieth century.

Sidaway (2001) also discussed the policy that became known as containment wherein the

US aimed to encircle and block the potential expansion of Soviet power and influence beyond

the immediate borders of the USSR and the pro- Soviet states installed by the USSR in the

Eastern European territories that the Soviet Union had occupied during its Second World War

battle for survival against Nazi Germany. According to Sidaway (2001) the functions of

geopolitics, in particular its “strategic vision” and claim of “scientific' objectivity,” was

particularly evident in the US in 1945.

In “Geopolitics and Conflict” written by Harvey Starr in 2015, the author argues that

world politics must be understood not only in terms of time (through history), but also in terms

of place. Whether studying world systems, regions, governments, or other international actors,

the external and internal contexts must incorporate time, space, and place. In the study of

international relations, territoriality, proximity, and spatiality have all played important roles.

Starr (2015) added that while international law and legal problems were never major

themes in Realism, territoriality was. This is because territoriality is fundamental to the

geopolitical setting (or context) that impacts state security – it has long been seen as a key

component of state security. Borders have thus been considered as intricately tied to state

security from a Realist perspective, as state borders both symbolized and constituted the “hard

shell” promised by the (legal) phenomenon of sovereignty. The legal condition of sovereignty

granted the "prince’s" government unlimited control over the land and people on it, with no
external authority having the legal authority to tell the state how to act. The state's borders

defined the crucial legal distinctions between what was internal (or domestic) and what was

external (or foreign) (or the realm of foreign relations).

Thus, according to Starr (2015), the Realist perspective is significant because it

represents areas where traditional security views of borders (and geopolitics in general) remain

relevant in terms of sovereignty; where boundaries function as key aspects in either deterrence or

defense.

In “Rescuing Classical Geopolitics: Separating Geopolitics from Realism” written by Phil

Kelly in 2019, the author showed why realism and classical geopolitics should be separate. Kelly

(2019) believes that the assumptions, theories, and approaches of the two models differ. The

study of how the relative locations/positions of states, regions, and resources influence nations'

international behaviors, policies, and actions is known as classical geopolitics. The concept

envisions tools for evaluating international relations that are neutral, timeless, and ubiquitous,

with a focus on ideas incorporated for insight into international events and foreign policies. For

example, a country's security or insecurity is influenced by its location within regions and

relative to other countries. Some countries are more oriented toward the seas, while others are

more oriented toward the land. It reveals a geographic context in which leaders build their

security and diplomatic plans.

Realism, on the other hand, emphasizes on statespersons’ awareness and control of a

nation's strength, which is assessed by a variety of factors, including political effectiveness,

military preparation, natural resources, strategic locations, advanced technology, and industry.

This approach aids foreign-affairs experts in defining and implementing security and economic

interests for countries operating in a risky international environment. Individual countries may be
concerned with their own security, a concept known as self-help, but they are rarely able to

protect themselves fully against equal-power adversaries. When they try to strengthen their

defenses, others may strengthen theirs as well, creating a security conundrum that leads to

dysfunctional arms races (Starr, 2019).

In light of its basic theoretical assumptions involving power politics, this study argues

that, while classical geopolitics has its own set of assumptions, theories, and approaches, it can

potentially be considered an intrinsic part of the realist international-relations model. Classical

geopolitics is a theory of recurrent patterns of development and interactions between diverse

geopolitical actors in theory. It includes at least five power or technology variables namely the

sea power, land power, air power, aerospace power and cyber power, and three categories of

geopolitical actors, namely the sea powers, land powers, and land–sea hybrid powers. In other

words, economics and technology are intrinsic to traditional geopolitics rather than being an

afterthought. The advent of new centers of economic power, as well as changes in

communication, transportation, and weapons technology, alter a state’s geopolitical calculations,

forcing geopolitical theorists to shift their framework of analysis to the changed settings (Wu,

2018).

Classical geopolitics has its relevance because geopolitical realities, particularly the

interaction of geography, technology, and human activities, continue to influence policy and

strategy (Wu, 2018). It acknowledges that geography and technology shape international

politics’ boundaries and opportunities, but it also incorporates human choice and behaviors. In

this way, classical geopolitics has never been deterministic, contrary to popular belief. For

classical geopolitics, “the actual balance of political power at any given time is, of course, the

product, on the one hand, of geographical conditions, both economic and strategic, and, on the
other hand, of the relative number, virility, equipment, and organization of the competing

peoples” (Wilkinson, Holdich, & Mackinder, 1904).

State interests can be interpreted in a number of ways. For example, China's drive of

spatialization in the South China Sea has put a strain on objective geographical demarcations

(Perlez, 2016), which is a major aspect of traditional geopolitics. Beeson (2009) backs this up by

pointing out how political hegemony can spark new geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the

South China Sea's plethora of territorial claims substantiates the subjectivity of borders. As a

result, there can be no objective reality, and theories like classical geopolitics that purport to

judge state politics based on objectivity are made relatively obsolete (Kelly, 2006).

According to Schreer (2019), East Asia's geopolitical geography no longer serves as a

buffer against possibly major US-Sino competition. Because of contested “spheres of influence,”

the region's “geography of peace” may be replaced by a “geography of conflict.” China's and

America's “spheres of influence,” even if undeclared, are rapidly overlapping inside the first and

second island chains. China’s and the United States’ strategic behavior in East Asia reflects the

notions of classical geopolitical strategists in ways that could make peace and stability

management much more difficult. Clearly, in this new geopolitical environment, conflict

between the two great powers is not mechanically predetermined. As Mackinder (2004) noted,

“man and not nature initiates.”

Indeed, the Cold War had irreversible consequences on regional prosperity. It has

instilled the belief that power is not limited to one's own geographical bounds, but also to those

of one's allies. This emphasizes the idea that geopolitics is fundamentally “power politics.”

(Tuathail, 1999).
Sources:

Beeson, M. (2009). Geopolitics and the making of regions: The fall and rise of East

Asia. Political Studies, 57(3), 498-516.

Kelly, P. (2006). A critique of critical geopolitics. Geopolitics, 11(1), 24-53.

Kelly, P. (2019). Rescuing Classical Geopolitics: Separating Geopolitics from

Realism. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 11(1), 41-58.

Mackinder, H. J. (2004). The geographical pivot of history (1904). The geographical

journal, 170(4), 298-321.

Perlez, J. (2016). Tribunal Rejects Beijing’s Claims in South China Sea. New York Times, 12

Schreer, B. (2019). Towards Contested ‘Spheres of Influence’in the Western Pacific: Rising

China, Classical Geopolitics, and Asia-Pacific Stability. Geopolitics, 24(2), 503-522.

Sidaway, J. (2001). Geopolitics: Twentieth century spectre. Geography, 225-234.

Starr, H. (2015). Geopolitics and Conflict. The Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies, Vol.

2, No. 1.

Tuathail, G. Ó. (1999). Understanding critical geopolitics: Geopolitics and risk society. The

Journal of Strategic Studies, 22(2-3), 107-124.

Wilkinson, S., Holdich, T., & Mackinder, H. J. (1904). The Geographical Pivot of History:

Discussion. The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 437-444

Wu, Z. (2018). Classical geopolitics, realism and the balance of power theory. Journal of

Strategic Studies, 41(6), 786-823.