These my brand-new reflections on geopolitics present it as a philosophical field, emphasizing the influence of geography on political strategies and the impact of geopolitical actions on collective identities and human conditions. It integrates classical philosophical thoughts on power and State acts, aiming to deepen the understanding of nations’ strategic behaviours and ethical considerations. This reflective approach seeks to enhance insights into global interactions and the shaping of geopolitical landscapes.

Geopolitics and Philosophy

Part II

We already anticipate the criticism—hardly original—that this vision of the Whole represents an oppressive concept that erases differences. A charge often levied against Hegel, likely because one has not even read the preface of the Phenomenology of Spirit, in which Hegel himself levels this accusation against the thought of Schelling, from whom such a consequence could indeed be deduced. The philosopher from Jena dismisses this absurd perspective in a few lines: “Now, to oppose the differentiated and complete knowledge, or the knowledge that seeks and demands completeness, to this single knowledge for which in the Absolute all is equal, or to peddle one’s Absolute as the night in which, as the saying goes, all cows are black: well, all this is nothing but the ingenuity of an empty knowledge.”
The Whole we discuss here, therefore, is not a darkening totality that obliterates every difference, but rather a Whole where the parts acquire their raison d’être; where the relationships that emerge from the differences configure a totality to be grasped. Not unlinked individualities, nor annulled individualities, but individualities that through the travail of relation become themselves within the Whole. This is the principle of human communities, the subject of geopolitics. They do not annul individualities but are an expression of them. Communities are not abstract entities imposed from above but concrete essences that emerge from below.
Geopolitics and philosophy, therefore, have human communities as their subject and aim to understand them in their full expressive totality, that is, in the synthesis of their internal and external relationships. To comprehend their structure, it is essential to grasp what is substantial. Not to be dazzled by chronicles and breaking news, but to seek beneath the veil of appearances what makes a people what it is. Only by looking at the essential can we consider the community in its totality. Only thus is it possible to discern the necessary from the accessory. Based on this distinction, a multiplicity of individuals takes shape as a unit. If the character of the community is the necessary and that of the individual the accessory, these qualities of being extend to their historical becoming. Geopolitics well understands that, just as it is easier to approximate the behavior of a molecule rather than that of an atom, so it is possible to anticipate the development of a community while it will be impossible to do the same for a single individual. The Whole exhibits more regular and predictable behaviors compared to the individual parts. The necessary character does not concern the inevitability of what will be, but rather the anticipation or prediction of it. The necessary is traceable in certain characteristics of the substance and these allow for the tracing of a possible future trajectory. When geopolitical analysts talk about the constraints and imperatives of a community, these are nothing but the declination of the necessity of being in the field of what can be.

Philosophy is what allows us to grasp the “spirit of the people,” its substance, and thus the necessary. Geopolitics uses this human analysis and adds as a corollary, other points of observation: geographical, economic, political, military, technological, and cultural analyses—these revolve around the first and not vice versa, for it is always the subject that determines the object and not the opposite. The endpoint of philosophy is the fundamental starting point of geopolitics.
If the concrete is the whole, philosophy has always attempted to grasp it. It has sought, that is, to conceptualize the concrete, to rationalize the real. This does not mean believing that human reality is inherently rational, but that it, as a product of humanity, is rationalizable, understandable. Irrationality is never banned, at most misunderstood. One can rationalize what seems irrational, understand what logically appears inconvenient and contrary to the interest of those who enact it. This is the main reason why deterministic prediction is impossible.
Philosophy, once it has grasped the contradictory substance of the real, and while postulating its constant becoming, has refrained from going beyond its time. It has instead positioned itself at the window, satisfied with having understood what has now closed and waiting for the owl of Minerva to whisper a new past reality at dusk. If philosophy is thus its own time apprehended through thought, geopolitics is the thought of its own time translated into the concrete. Philosophy looks at what has already been realized; geopolitics takes up the work of philosophy to try to understand what will be realized.
If what has been said so far is clear, it logically follows the centrality of the State and History. The former, not understood exclusively as the National State, but as every statal representation of a community, which includes the Greek poleis, medieval communes and duchies, up to empires and national states. The form changes, not the substance. Regarding History, we might say, with Hegel, that it includes both the historia rerum gestarum and the res gestae, i.e., it encompasses both the objective aspect (what happened) and the subjective aspect (its narration). The need to tell oneself, to describe oneself, arises with the establishment of the State. This takes shape as a system of laws and customs of a certain people in a specific geographic space. In its emergence, it also brings forth the people’s interest in narrating their actions, both to keep track of events useful for organization (documents) and because it is necessary to feed self-consciousness (epics, tragedies, comedies, etc.). On the other hand, in the absence of a State—as in those communities representing the mere extension of a lineage and for nomadic communities—the community does not desire to describe itself but rather feels the need to justify its presence in the world. Justification that cannot be drawn from the presence of a State and the ownership of land. In such contexts, religious narratives and revealed truths take the place of History, for only transcendence can fill the void left by the State. It is the latter, then, that gives rise to History.