Now, after we have discussed the geopolitical approach and how it can be used to describe International Relations, it is time to discuss its limits. In other words, what aspects of International Relations, geopolitics does not or cannot explain. To do this, we we'll try to compare geopolitics with several other International Relations theories. On the one hand, by doing this, we will show the geopolitics is just one among many theories in IR that tried to explain relations between countries and this means that even when we use geopolitics to describe any situation in the world, we show only the part of picture. On the other hand, by doing this, we will show what aspects of International Relations, for what aspects geopolitics is good to be used and for what aspects, for what side of International Relations, it is better to use other approaches. Let's start with realism. We remember that geopolitics is very close to realism. Some would even say that geopolitics was born in the family of the realists theories in the middle of the 20th century, when Nicholas Sparkman and Hans Morgenthau tried to combine benefits of the two theories. However, there are certain distinctions still. For example, for realism, the main variable is power itself in a broad sense and the main issue for realism is war and peace, the question of war and peace when states go to war and the what circumstances they decide to declare peace with each other. The subfield of realism, which is called structural realism or neo-realism, also considers the role of structure in International Relations, how the existing structure influences behavior of states. In geopolitics, it is a little bit different. For example, geopolitics pays more attention not to power itself in a broad sense but to the location of power, to how geographic variables influence the issues of power. In other words, while for realism, power is the most important variable, for geopolitics, it is more important the possibility of power projection in a particular place, even if the state, a certain state possesses a little bit less power than its opponent. Then for geopolitics, is this more important to speak about influence in a particular place rather than about the issues of war and peace. From the very beginning, geopolitics was about influence and control over particular places, trade routes and so on. The one political practitioner who tried to combine these approaches was Henry Kissinger, and we remember his approach, which was about global equilibrium or the role of geopolitical factors, imbalance of power. So in other words, the two approaches can be combined and it is a good combination. However, we have just shown their peculiarities. Now, let's compare geopolitics with another grand theory which is liberalism. For liberalism, one of its distinctive characteristics is that absolute gains in International Relations are possible. In other words, there is such a type of cooperation between states that can bring gains or benefits to both sides. So for liberalism cooperation is more natural than competition and contemporary liberalism also pays a lot of attention to institutions and their role in bringing the states to peace and cooperation with each other. A good example is case of the European Union, how the institutions developed within this organization contributed to peace among the European countries in the recent 70 years. So if you want to start at the rule of institutions, the rule of cooperation in International Relations, you should use the liberal approach. In geopolitics, it is totally different. For example, there are no absolute gains in International Relations according to geopolitics. Only geopolitical competition, competition for limited resources, competition for control over trade routes and so on. Institutions can be in geopolitical competition but they adjust tools of influence over the other countries. We can use the very same example, the European Union and geopolitical think about it as a tool of four states, truant states like Germany or France to influence the other countries of Europe, for example, in Eastern Europe. Finally, in geopolitics state is the key actor in international relations, while in liberal approach, a state is one of many actors among which we can also name some international organizations or even domestic organizations, communities and so on. In geopolitics, it is a little bit different. For example, competition in geopolitics is not legacy of age of imperialism. The very two geopolitics wars such a legacy and geopolitical knowledge emerged in the age of imperialism but we remember that geopolitical competition started many centuries before the age of imperialism and the factor of geography contributed to competition between states throughout whole history of humanity. Finally, competition and contest in geopolitics is not between rich and poor necessarily, but between great powers for resources and influence, this competition may happen between rich and rich state, between poor and poor state. So the place of state in this chain of wealth is not so important like in the neo-Marxism approach. One more approach in international relations to explain politics among nations is International Political Economy. This approach focuses on wealth as a key driver of international cooperation and studies institutions, how institutions are used to gain more profit. For this approach, state is the key actor however, state can cooperate with different organizations or with business, with private companies in order to maximize its profit, maximize its wealth. For geo-economics, it is closed but not the same. On the one hand, we can see that according to geo-economics, these state is looking for maximization of its gains. However, geo-economics is continuation of the logic of geopolitics. So in geo-economic state is looking for gains that can be converted in geopolitical advantage. For example, institutions here are used to get more profit which is associated with power of the state and in geo-economic stage is also key actor but it also can cooperate with business in order to achieve more gains that can be converted into its power. In one of the previous lectures, we started to compare critical geopolitics with constructivism. So let's very quickly remind this comparison. Constructivism is a theory that revises the objectiveness of liberalism. Liberalism, it believes that state is not the key actor in international relations and that we should focus on study of groups and persons who construct reality of international relations. So reality is other word is socially constructed. Critical geopolitics is very close to constructivism. It does not reject objectiveness of geopolitics, classical geopolitics, but it's rather focuses on study of domestic contexts, when and where this geopolitical knowledge emerged in a particular state. So for critical geopolitics, state is not a key actor as well because it focuses on study of people who created all this geopolitical concepts and it started not only decision makers, but also groups of people who participated in decision-making to such as a think tanks, or academic community. And so on. The last but not the least, Foreign Policy Analysis. This approach believes that state is actor in International Relations, but this actually is not homogeneous. It consists of many agencies, institutions, and decision makers who participate in decision making process and this is the main focus of study of Foreign Policy Analysis. For geopolitics, it is not the same. Geopolitics, classical geopolitics consider state as something homogeneous. It does not try to look inside the state. Critical geopolitics partly does this. It analyzes different agencies and how they produce geopolitical knowledge but critical geopolitics focuses only on construction of geopolitical concepts, geopolitical views not on anything else. So it is limited version of foreign policy analysis from the point of view of geopolitics. We can also name here one more subfield of geopolitics, which is anti-geopolitics. It tells us about the role of non-state actors in geopolitical competition. In other words, how these non-state actors contribute to competition among nations, among states at the regional or the global level. One of the examples is the role of terrorist organizations and how they are made possible conflict between the Muslim states and the United States in the early 2000s when the United States after the terrorist attacks, decided to invade Iraq. So as you see in this graph, classical geopolitics, geo-economics and critical geopolitics, altogether are just a little part of the complex knowledge, the field of science called international relations. This tools, this theories, this approaches are really very powerful. They emerged early and the were used very frequently by people to analyze relations, to advice to policymakers and to construct geo-strategies of countries and they are very frequently used even now but when you use them, don't forget that you describe only one side of International Relations and there are many more aspects that unfortunately cannot be described with the help of geopolitics and its variations and for which you should learn more about alternative approaches, alternative theories of International Relations. In the end of this lecture and of the course, let me finish with looking deeper in the future, and I will start with the quotation that we are the middle children of history, born too late to explore earth and born too early to explore space. We can see that it is the last frontier for geopolitics. Today, technologists are developing very fast and in the future, space exploration, space colonization, and new contexts for space resources and influence will become possible. We should remember it, the geopolitics is first of all about competition between countries on our planet, where geo meaning Earth. Space and earth orbit can be considered within geopolitics but they're viewed as a way of power projection on the Earth. The same is about space technologies. They are the issue of security and power projection. So in the future when the space colonization, space exploration will become possible, we will start to speak about the next level of competition between countries may be between planets, which will record as geopolitics. But this will be another topic for another lecture of another course. Thank you for your attention.
