Geopolitics: Concept, Limits, and Uses in Strategic Analysis
This article was translated automatically and may contain differences from the original. For reference, read the original.
1. Introduction
Geopolitics has become an omnipresent term in public debate regarding international relations, security, and economics; therefore, it is being used to describe virtually any global phenomenon. This semantic expansion has drained the concept of analytical content, making it more difficult to understand complex security and strategic dynamics, thereby reducing the quality of the debate on international policy.
2. Background: Origin, Crisis, and Reconstruction
The term geopolitics did not originate as a neutral or merely descriptive concept, but rather as an explicit attempt to provide scientific rationality to the behavior of states in the international space. It was coined in 1899 by Swedish political scientist Rudolf Kjellén, in a context marked by imperial competition, the rise of economic nationalism, and growing concerns over territorial control and resources.[1]
In its original formulation, geopolitics sought to explain international politics based on “objective” geographical factors: the arrangement of continents, access to seas, availability of natural resources, and the relative position of states. Its early proponents—Ratzel, Mahan, Mackinder—posed questions directly linked to power: how to expand territorially, how to project influence, how to ensure national greatness.[2] In its origin, it was a practice linked to the exercise of power, that is, a way of thinking about the world from the state and for the state. Its dual condition—analytical and normative—explains both its influence and the controversies that have accompanied it.
This stage reaches its most problematic point in the interwar period, with the development of German Geopolitik. Under the influence of Karl Haushofer, geopolitics transforms into an explicitly normative doctrine, when concepts such as Lebensraum cease to be analytical hypotheses and become ideological justifications for expansionism. This link with Nazism generates a profound rupture after World War II. In the Western academic world, the term becomes discredited, associated with geographical determinism and the legitimization of aggressive power.
The crisis was not only reputational but also epistemological: the idea that geography could directly determine state behavior was questioned. Geopolitics was then displaced by more formalized approaches—structural realism, institutionalism—but did not disappear. The result is a concept that survives, but without a clear definition or disciplinary consensus: it is sometimes used as a synonym for political geography; at other times, as a strategic framework, and also as a mere rhetorical label. [3] In other words, geopolitics continues to be used, but is no longer always understood.
3. What IS Geopolitics?
Geopolitics is an analytical framework oriented towards strategic decision-making, studying how spatial conditions influence the configuration, projection, and limitation of power. Its focus is not on geography as a static datum, but on the interaction between space, power, and political action. In this sense, geopolitics allows for an understanding of how certain factors, such as geographical location, strategic depth, access to resources, communication routes, connectivity, and proximity to conflict zones, condition—without determining—the available options for state and non-state actors.[4] It is a framework of constraints and opportunities within which strategies are formulated.
Its value lies in translating space into concrete strategic-level problems. It allows for answering fundamental questions for political and security management: where are the centers of gravity? What are the critical corridors? What structural vulnerabilities exist? What positions offer comparative advantages in a competitive or conflict scenario? etc.
Furthermore, geopolitics incorporates the perceptual dimension of space. It analyzes not only objective conditions but also how actors interpret their environment, regarding what threats they identify, what priorities they establish, and how they rank risks and opportunities.[5] Therefore, geopolitics contributes to how decision-makers conceive the environment and delineate possible courses of action.
Two examples illustrate a rigorous use of the concept in recent debate. Globally, analyses of the war in Ukraine that examine how control of the Black Sea conditions grain exports and Russian naval projection correctly employ geopolitics; as they link space, power, and specific strategic constraints, without reducing the conflict to a single variable. In the Chilean case, discussions about lithium policy, which consider the country’s position in global supply chains, its access to the Pacific Ocean, and competition among powers for critical minerals, constitute an analytically valid use of the term, where space and its strategic value are indeed the central explanatory factor.
For AthenaLab, geopolitics is understood as an applied analytical tool that integrates physical, political, strategic, economic, and technological dimensions to support decision-making in complex contexts.
4. What Geopolitics Is NOT
Geopolitics is not synonymous with international relations nor a substitute for strategic analysis. It does not equate to any interaction between states or to the mere description of global conflicts. Reducing it to these uses transforms it into an empty concept that loses analytical utility.
First, geopolitics is not geographical determinism. Geography does not dictate state behavior nor predetermine outcomes. Interpretations that assume space automatically defines politics reproduce classic errors that have been widely questioned in the discipline.[6]
Second, geopolitics is not a total explanatory narrative, as not every international phenomenon is “geopolitical.” Economic processes, institutional dynamics, and organizational decisions require their own analytical frameworks. Using geopolitics as an “explanatory wildcard” leads to simplifications that distort reality and impoverish analysis.[7]
Third, geopolitics does not replace security studies or the inputs provided by strategic intelligence, although it relates to both. Security manages threats; intelligence produces information for decision-making. Geopolitics, on the other hand, is a lens for interpreting space and power, which can inform those processes but not replace them.
Finally, geopolitics should not become a rhetorical or ideological tool. Its use to justify preconceived political positions or to exaggerate threats undermines its credibility and affects the quality of public debate. In institutional and public policy contexts, this imprecise use can lead to erroneous diagnoses and deficient strategic decisions.
For AthenaLab, establishing the scope and attempting to clarify what geopolitics is not is as important as defining what it is. Only in this way is it possible to preserve its analytical rigor, avoid its trivialization, and strengthen its utility in the formulation of national security, defense, and international relations strategies.
5. Implications of Inadequate Use
The imprecise use of the term geopolitics is not merely a conceptual problem; it has direct consequences on the quality of analysis and, in more critical cases, on decision-making at the political-strategic level. The most evident risk is overgeneralization. In public debate, especially in the media, virtually any international event is labeled as “geopolitical”: from fluctuations in oil prices to trade tensions or internal political crises in other countries. This indiscriminate use not only dilutes the concept but also prevents the precise identification of the true explanatory variables of each phenomenon.[8]
In the Chilean case, this trend is particularly visible. The rise in energy prices or disruptions in global supply chains are often attributed to “geopolitics” without distinguishing between structural market factors, regulatory decisions, or dynamics of economic competition. Similarly, distant international conflicts are frequently interpreted under a simplified geopolitical logic, without considering equally determining historical, institutional, or domestic dimensions. Such interpretations not only impoverish analysis but can also generate distorted perceptions of the international environment.
In light of the situation described above, it is essential to recover the analytical character of geopolitics. Its value lies not in its ability to explain everything, but in its utility to illuminate specific aspects of the strategic environment that other disciplines do not capture with the same clarity. When used correctly, it allows for the identification of constraints, visualization of opportunities, and understanding of the spatial dimension of power.
6. Final Considerations
Geopolitics remains a valid and necessary tool for understanding the international environment, but its utility directly depends on the precision with which it is employed. It is not a total explanatory concept nor a label applicable to any global phenomenon, but rather a specific analytical framework that allows for interpreting the relationship between space and power in strategic contexts. The challenge, then, is to recover its original meaning and delineate its scope. This involves clearly distinguishing geopolitics from other disciplines, avoiding its use as a rhetorical resource, and employing it only when it provides real analytical value.
AthenaLab, as a research center specialized in security, defense, and international relations, considers it essential to contribute to this effort. Promoting a precise use of geopolitics is part of a broader task aimed at elevating the level of public debate, strengthening strategic analysis, and contributing to a better understanding of the international environment from Chile. As an analytical community, we share the task of employing the concept rigorously, distinguishing it from other frameworks, and resisting its trivialization. Only in this way can geopolitics fulfill its function as an effective tool for thinking strategically about the world.
7. Recommended Additional Readings
Classical Geopolitics and Theory:
- Cohen, Saul B. Geopolitics: The Geography of International Relations. 3rd ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
- Gray, Colin S. The Geopolitics of the Nuclear Era: Heartland, Rimlands, and the Technological Revolution. New York: Crane, Russak, 1977.
- Ó Tuathail, Gearóid. Critical Geopolitics: The Politics of Writing Global Space. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
- O’Sullivan, Patrick. Geopolitics. London: Croom Helm, 1986.
Contemporary Geopolitics and World Order:
- Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York: Basic Books, 1997.
- Kaplan, Robert D. The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against Fate. New York: Random House, 2012.
- Kissinger, Henry. World Order. New York: Penguin Press, 2014.
Latin American and Chilean Geopolitics:
- Child, Jack. Geopolitics and Conflict in South America: Quarrels Among Neighbors. New York: Praeger, 1985.
- Cañas Montalva, Ramón. General Ramón Cañas Montalva: Pioneer of Geopolitics in Chile. Editors: Griffiths, John and Massallera, Marcelo. Santiago, Chile: AthenaLab, 2024.
Bibliography
Cohen, Saul B. Geography and Politics in a Divided World. London: Methuen, 1964.
Dodds, Klaus. Geopolitics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Flint, Colin. Introduction to Geopolitics. 4th ed. New York: Routledge, 2017.
Hepple, Leslie W. “The Revival of Geopolitics”, in Political Geography Quarterly, Supplement to Vol. 5, no. 4 (October 1986): 21–36.
Kjellén, Rudolf. Stormakterna. Stockholm: Hugo Gebers, 1914.
Lacoste, Yves. La géographie, ça sert, d’abord, à faire la guerre. Paris: Maspero, 1976.
Mackinder, Halford J. “The Geographical Pivot of History”, in The Geographical Journal 23, no. 4 (1904): 421–437.
Mahan, Alfred Thayer. The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1890.
Ó Tuathail, Gearóid, and Simon Dalby. “Introduction: Rethinking Geopolitics — Towards a Critical Geopolitics”, in Rethinking Geopolitics, edited by Gearóid Ó Tuathail and Simon Dalby, 1–30. London: Routledge, 1998.
Østerud, Øyvind. “The Uses and Abuses of Geopolitics”, in Journal of Peace Research 25, no. 2 (1988): 191–199.
Paret, Peter, ed. Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Ratzel, Friedrich. Politische Geographie. Munich and Leipzig: Oldenbourg, 1897.
Spykman, Nicholas J. The Geography of the Peace. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1944.
[1] Rudolf Kjellén, Stormakterna (Stockholm: Hugo Gebers, 1914).
[2] Friedrich Ratzel, Politische Geographie (Munich and Leipzig: Oldenbourg, 1897); Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1890); Halford J. Mackinder, “The Geographical Pivot of History”, in The Geographical Journal 23, no. 4 (1904): 421–437.
[3] Leslie W. Hepple, “The Revival of Geopolitics”, in Political Geography Quarterly, Supplement to Vol. 5, no. 4 (October 1986): S21–S36.
[4] Klaus Dodds, Geopolitics: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); Colin Flint, Introduction to Geopolitics, 4th ed. (New York: Routledge, 2017).
[5] Gearóid Ó Tuathail and Simon Dalby, “Introduction: Rethinking Geopolitics – Towards a Critical Geopolitics”, in Rethinking Geopolitics, ed. Gearóid Ó Tuathail and Simon Dalby (London: Routledge, 1998).
[6] Flint, Introduction to Geopolitics.
[7] Østerud, “The Uses and Abuses of Geopolitics”, 191–199.
[8] Dodds, Geopolitics: A Very Short Introduction.
