1. In your own words, how would you define geopolitics? What is it about Dugin’s understanding of geopolitics that strikes you as significant? How does Dugin differ from what you originally thought geopolitics was? Search for additional information, a TED talk, for example, that covers geopolitics of the Middle East and then discuss how it conforms (or not) with what Dugin says.
Geopolitics to me can simply be defined as the relationship between the geographic factors within a specific place and how they effect that place politically. A great example of this would be a landlocked country with no natural ways to transport goods. Because of this, countries may find it difficult to create economic growth as moving things in and out is much more expensive and difficult. This is a geographic factor that impacts the politics of that country. Dugin takes this a step further by representing the studies of relations and interactions between spaces, states, civilizations, people, and economics. He describes that it is based on the centrality of space and to me, that’s something I would have never thought of when originally considering what geopolitics was. To understand this, you must first understand what he means by space. It is qualitative, living space, a place where orientations matter.
https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/geopolitics-theories-concepts-schools-and-debates
His thoughts differ from mine in just a few ways as the majority of his ideology I agree with. I believe in both his ideas on land and sea power and how there are good and bad aspects of control with each. I agree that there is much more power on the coast than in the continental mass. I listened to a speech given by Peter Zeihan discussing the ways in which Egypt was behind due to the lack of travel abilities. Until learning to use a sailboat or travel by camel, the Middle East had a major set back of their ability to move in and out. Another issue was their military, banks functionability, and more. Libia had similar issues. This is slightly different from what Dugin suggests as Egypt is not land locked, they have land and coastal powers. I think that originally, Dugin has a more understandable and reliable view on the benefits found within this country.
2. How does Kinzer set up his argument about the relations between the US and Iran? Why is Kinzer stressing the importance of history? Do you agree or have a different view?
Kinzer begins by describing the desires that Iran had to be more like the United
States. Iran saw the way the United States broke its chains from the British and began ruling on their own terms. Iran was working towards this as well. He describes Iran’s improvements in the five years following its Constitutional Revolution and how so many positive things were happening such as religious minorities having a say and a seat within Parliament, political parties forming, and a vibrant democracy being present. Throughout the chapters, history and the ways in which it has affected the future have been brought to the surface. One of the major historical happenings that he goes into detail about is the Persians. They created a constitutional government which was favorable for the masses and created justice among the people. Russia and Britain basically destroyed this through an ultimatum. I believe that the reason history is so important is so that the mistakes made out of pure greed are not repeated in the future. When we look back and can see the results of the actions made in the past, it gives clear reasoning as to why new decisions should be made to further growth and the wellbeing of mankind.
Blog 4810 