Geopolitics and Latin America
Published in Analítica
(Venezuela) on 19 March 2025
by Sadio Garavini di Turno (link to original)
(Venezuela) on 19 March 2025
by Sadio Garavini di Turno (link to original)
Translated from
by Patricia Simoni .
Edited by Laurence Bouvard.
The balance of world power has shifted. The unipolar “moment” that began at the end of the Cold War when the United States was the preeminent superpower in every dimension, is over. The force of history, geopolitics and spheres of influence is returning with a vengeance. With the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia and the growth of India — among others — we are now in a multipolar world.
The renewed rise of geopolitics diminishes the relative relevance of multilateralism, international law, the defense of human rights, democracy and moral values in international politics. Interest in the fathers of geopolitics is back — Sir Halford John Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Nicholas J. Spykman, and Karl Haushofer, Adolph Hitler's geopolitical master — and reminds us of “lebensraum,” the vital living space Germany sought. Indeed, in the Ukrainian crisis, it is relevant to remember that, for Russia, the Cold War ended with a genuine geopolitical catastrophe. Without firing a shot, Russia lost everything it had won since the times of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great and Josef Stalin.
Let us also remember that Russia has suffered invasion from the West: from Sweden, in 1708; France, in 1812; and twice from Germany — in 1924 and 1941. For Russia, the geographical depth of its territory has been fundamental to its defense against attacks from the West. Moreover, from a cultural and historical perspective, for Russia, Ukraine is part of the so-called Rusky Mir, the Russian world. A part of Ukraine speaks Russian. After the Cold War, NATO was extended not only to former satellite countries of the Soviet Union, but also to territories that were once part of the Soviet Union itself, such as the Baltic states.
It is understandable that, Russia considers the possibility of Ukraine’s joining NATO a serious threat to its security. However, Russia could have easily prevented Ukraine's accession to NATO by simply threatening to take forceful action and exercising smart coercive diplomacy. In reality, Vladimir Putin's invasion was intended to occupy all of Ukraine, not just to prevent NATO membership and to recover the eastern regions with a Russian cultural majority. Don't forget that Hitler also used the Sudeten German minority as an excuse to occupy all of Czechoslovakia.
As for the return of spheres of influence, eminent Harvard professor Graham Allison suggests that, in a multipolar world, the international system would be more stable and peaceful if the United States would accept the reality of new spheres of influence among the great powers.
Influential scholars, such as Walter Russell Mead, warn that the growing presence of Russia, China and Iran in Latin America is becoming a serious national security threat to the United States and that a vigorous hemispheric policy will bring together hawks, isolationists and what Russell calls “restrainers”: those who wish to curtail U.S. international action. All agree on the revival of the Monroe Doctrine, Russell tells us.
In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, “A Better Way to Defend America,” Harvard professor and military specialist Stephen Rosen writes that the U.N. will need to maintain naval and air forces in the Western Hemisphere to enforce a new kind of Monroe Doctrine. A crucial part of this presence will be to prevent adversaries from establishing military positions in the Western Hemisphere.
We certainly live in a dangerous world.
The renewed rise of geopolitics diminishes the relative relevance of multilateralism, international law, the defense of human rights, democracy and moral values in international politics. Interest in the fathers of geopolitics is back — Sir Halford John Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Nicholas J. Spykman, and Karl Haushofer, Adolph Hitler's geopolitical master — and reminds us of “lebensraum,” the vital living space Germany sought. Indeed, in the Ukrainian crisis, it is relevant to remember that, for Russia, the Cold War ended with a genuine geopolitical catastrophe. Without firing a shot, Russia lost everything it had won since the times of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great and Josef Stalin.
Let us also remember that Russia has suffered invasion from the West: from Sweden, in 1708; France, in 1812; and twice from Germany — in 1924 and 1941. For Russia, the geographical depth of its territory has been fundamental to its defense against attacks from the West. Moreover, from a cultural and historical perspective, for Russia, Ukraine is part of the so-called Rusky Mir, the Russian world. A part of Ukraine speaks Russian. After the Cold War, NATO was extended not only to former satellite countries of the Soviet Union, but also to territories that were once part of the Soviet Union itself, such as the Baltic states.
It is understandable that, Russia considers the possibility of Ukraine’s joining NATO a serious threat to its security. However, Russia could have easily prevented Ukraine's accession to NATO by simply threatening to take forceful action and exercising smart coercive diplomacy. In reality, Vladimir Putin's invasion was intended to occupy all of Ukraine, not just to prevent NATO membership and to recover the eastern regions with a Russian cultural majority. Don't forget that Hitler also used the Sudeten German minority as an excuse to occupy all of Czechoslovakia.
As for the return of spheres of influence, eminent Harvard professor Graham Allison suggests that, in a multipolar world, the international system would be more stable and peaceful if the United States would accept the reality of new spheres of influence among the great powers.
Influential scholars, such as Walter Russell Mead, warn that the growing presence of Russia, China and Iran in Latin America is becoming a serious national security threat to the United States and that a vigorous hemispheric policy will bring together hawks, isolationists and what Russell calls “restrainers”: those who wish to curtail U.S. international action. All agree on the revival of the Monroe Doctrine, Russell tells us.
In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, “A Better Way to Defend America,” Harvard professor and military specialist Stephen Rosen writes that the U.N. will need to maintain naval and air forces in the Western Hemisphere to enforce a new kind of Monroe Doctrine. A crucial part of this presence will be to prevent adversaries from establishing military positions in the Western Hemisphere.
We certainly live in a dangerous world.
Previous article![]( "Trump’s Tactics Pay Off")
Next article![]( "Trump Makes Another Bid")
