Тhe nature and characteristics of the evolution of the phenomenon of geopolitics

Oksana A. Omelchenko; Oleksandr V. Kononenko; Victor M. Livinsky; Sergey V. Evminov; Iryna A. Olendiy; Mikhail A. Ovramets

doi:10.34069/AI/2022.51.03.13

Oksana A. Omelchenko Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6539-2445
Oleksandr V. Kononenko Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8029-9852
Victor M. Livinsky Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4475-6884
Sergey V. Evminov Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3270-8479
Iryna A. Olendiy Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4704-1569
Mikhail A. Ovramets Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7078-5921

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.51.03.13

Keywords: Geopolitics, geopolitical theories, geopolitical influence, geopolitical space, international relationships.

Abstract

The article has revealed the nature of the phenomenon of geopolitics as being the basis of the international relations and serving both as a scientific methodology to explain the behavior and relationships of a state with other countries in accordance with the geographical location and the interests. The concept of modern geopolitics is multifaceted, and scientists disagree regarding the definition of geopolitics as an independent science. Geopolitics is a methodology of international relations and foreign policy. Ultimately, the key to modern understanding of geopolitics is the policy and the image of a state within its geographical location, which can impact other subjects / objects of international life to ensure their national interests and national security. A number of conceptual approaches have been formed in the scientific discourse aiming to ensure the geopolitical advantage of a state. New processes and conflicts have been associated with the expansion of the Internet space and information technology. Recently, geopolitical theories have taken into account the latest tools and capabilities to influence used by leading states, including use of information, "hybrid" and "semantic" warfares. One of most urgent problems of the modern world is information warfare targeting creation of favorable conditions to gain geopolitical and geo-economic priority.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Oksana A. Omelchenko, Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.

PhD in Political Sciences, Head of the Special Department, Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.

Oleksandr V. Kononenko, Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.

PhD in Political Sciences, Rector of the Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.

Victor M. Livinsky, Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.

PhD in Political Sciences, Vice-Rector of the Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.

Sergey V. Evminov, Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.

Рostgraduate student, The Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.

Iryna A. Olendiy, Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.

PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor, Special Department, Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.

Mikhail A. Ovramets, Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.

PhD in Political Sciences, Associate Professor, Special Department, Academy of the Foreign Intelligence of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.

References

Ankerl, G. (2000). Global communication without universal civilization. INU societal research, Vol. 1. Geneva: INU Press.

Brandom, E. (2016). Liberalism and rationalism. French Historical Studies, 39(4), 749-780. https://doi.org/10.1215/00161071-3602256

Brzezinski, Z. (2004). The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. New York: Basic Books.

Criekemans, D. (2021). Chapter 3. Geopolitical Schools of Thought: A Concise Overview from 1890 till 2020, and beyond. Geopolitics and International Relations (pp. 97-155). Leiden, Boston: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004432086_005

Criekemans, D. (2019). Rehabilitation and renovation in geopolitical thinking. The Political Space, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.4000/espacepolitique.1723

Dalby, S. (1996). Crossing disciplinary boundaries: political geography and international relations after the cold war. Globalization. Theory and Practice (pp. 29-42). London: Pinter.

Dalby, S. (2008). Imperialism, domination, culture: the continued relevance of critical geopolitics. Geopolitics, 13(3), 413-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650040802203679

Devetak, R., Burke, A., & George, J. (Eds.). (2012). An Introduction to International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139196598

Dittmer, J., & Dodds, K. (2008). Popular geopolitics past and future: fandom, identities and audiences. Geopolitics, 13(3), 437-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650040802203687

Dussouy, G. (2010). Systemic geopolitics: A global interpretation method of the world. Geopolitics, 15(1), 133-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650040903420438

Haas, R. (2008). The age of nonpolarity. Foreign Affairs, 87(3), 44-56.

Huntington, S. (2016). The Clash of Civilizations. Remaking the World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Hyndman, J. (2008). Mind the gap: bridging feminist and political geography through geopolitics. Political Geography, 23, 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2003.12.014

Mazgaj, P. (2020). Raymond Aron, the United States, and the early cold war 1945-1953. The International History Review, 43(4), 796-814. https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2020.1838599

O’Tuathail, G. (1996). Critical Geopolitics: The Politics of Writing Global Space. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Owens, M. (1999). In defense of classical geopolitics. Naval War College Review, 52(4), 59-76.

Parsons, Т. (1950). The prospects of sociological theory. The American Sociological Review, 15(1), 3-16.

Purchla, J. (Ed.). (1996). The Historical Metropolis: A Hidden Potential. Krakow: International Cultural Center Krakow.

Rohkraèmer, T. (1999). Antimodernism, Reactionary, Modernism and National Socialism. Technocratic Tendencies in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/21039/1/download.pdf

Rothkopf, D. (2009). Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making. Krakow: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Snyder, T. (2017). On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth. New York: Random House.

Spang, C. (2013). Karl Haushofer and Japan. The Reception of His Geopolitical Theories in German and Japanese Politics. Munich: Iudicium.

Umland, A., & Yurchuck, Y. (2020). Special section: issues in the history and memory of the OUN. Journal of Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society, 2(3), 114-290.