In relations between political entities, whether regional or global, geography must be a critical element in assessing how to reconcile ends with means. All political entities have interests, from some merely maintaining integrity and independence, to others projecting power far afield.
Bonaparte's observation that a nation's geography determines it's strategy is valid still, but must be modified to allow for technological changes since the early 19th century.
Geographic features are relatively permanent. As the Earth no longer accomodates very large nomadic population groups, it's various populations since the beginning of the industrial age are often both constrained by their own particular geographical conditions, as well as prompted to compete, peacefully or otherwise, for necessities that are located among geographic features that are not readily accessible.
To this must be added the growth and expected continued growth of those various populations. Although perhaps not inevitable, reconciling ends with means in an atmosphere of burgeoning population and perceived finite resources, is likely to result in competition that may evolve into conflict.
World government is unlikely to materialize; international cooperation tends to occur infrequently, and usually when some polities recognize more advantage to themselves than to others. Since the Second World War, diplomacy has tended to be seen by many polities as a weapon rather than as an instrument of conflict resolution.
So, the politics that derive from the points above seem to me to indicate that geopolitics and "geopolitical strategy" are more, not less, important going forward into the current century. Geopolitics as a concept had bad press during the years between the two World Wars, but regained its importance during the Cold War when there were really only two major players. Now there are many players.
Before the eclipse of Europe as the political center of the world stage, a balance of power was viewed as an important part of reconciling ends with means. In recent decades, an overwhelming advantage of power, sometimes only in a regional or local sense, has found a strategic audience.
From a geopolitical perspective, viewed through the prism of ENDS, WAYS and MEANS, let's discuss some things that come to mind (and any other geopolitical issues the members want to explore):
1) Russia's geographical and historic position in the Eurasian land mass.
2) The resource interests of many polities in central Asia.
3) The Western Hemisphere and vital US interests there.
4) The Southern Hemisphere; Africa's reality and the potential of Brazil as a geopolitical factor in that geography.
5) India's development as a geopolitical factor in the critical area of the Indian Ocean.
6) China's efforts (ongoing) to advance her interests by resource accumulation in other geographical areas....both economic and strategic in nature.
Many, MANY others.
Feel free, please, to discuss all this in an historical perspective that seems to me to date from around 1900 AD. Some of the writings of geopolitical thinkers may be helpful going forward, and a few of the more influential are available at *gasp* wiki:
Welcome to the "Institute" and let's have fun.
Edited by pikeshot1600 - 17-Jun-2009 at 23:07