Origin and evolution of geopolitics. Object and subject of science. Geopolitics as a scientific discipline History of geopolitics

Geopolitics is a science that studies and analyzes in unity the geographical, historical, political and other interacting factors that affect the strategic potential of the state. The object of geopolitics as a science is the planetary space and the resources it possesses, geopolitical processes and phenomena in the world community as a system. The subject of geopolitics is the relationship between state policy and the spatial characteristics of statehood, geopolitical interests and relations of the subjects of world politics.

In fact, all thinkers ancient world thought about the influence of the surrounding geographical environment on the political life of a person.

Aristotle in Politics noted that the inhabitants of cold countries are brave, but devoid of invention and technical ingenuity, therefore, although they retain freedom longer than other peoples, they are not able to govern their neighbors and, therefore, need political leadership. The southern (Asian) peoples, on the contrary, are thoughtful and inventive, but not energetic, so slavery and subjugation are their “natural state”. The Greeks, who live in the intermediate region, combine best qualities those and others. Thus began the tradition of geographical determinism in political theory.

This approach was continued by Jean Woden, who came to the conclusion that the geographical environment affects the development of a person through the psyche and character of peoples. During the Enlightenment, this direction was developed by C. Montesquieu. In his treatise On the Spirit of Laws, he considered the influence of climate, space, soil, culture and economy as elements that shape history.

In the 11th century, the center of political and geographical research moved to Germany. K. Ritter (1779-1859), professor, head of the Berlin Geographical Society, developed a system of regional division of the world within a single global space. He divided the Earth into two hemispheres: water (sea) and land (continental). This difference had, in his opinion, a significant impact on the nature of the peoples inhabiting these regions.

In the second half of the 19th century, the German researcher Friedrich Ratzel (1844-1904) formulated, in essence, the main directions of the modern geopolitical view of the world. The foundation of his concept was the works "Anthropogeography" and "Political Geography". Noting that "... the properties of the state turn out to be the properties of the people and the land", he came to the conclusion that the state is made up of the territorial relief and of their understanding by the people.

Based on these reflections, F. Ratzel formulated the following seven laws:

1. The space of states grows along with the growth of culture.

2. The growth of states is accompanied by other symptoms of development: ideas, trade, missionary work, increased activity.

3. The growth of states is carried out by connecting and absorbing small states.

4. The frontier is a peripheral organ of the state and as such serves as evidence of its growth, strength or weakness and changes in this organism.

5. In its growth, the state seeks to absorb the most valuable elements of the physical environment, coastlines, riverbeds, plains, areas rich in resources.

6. The general tendency to merge, branching out, passes to primitive states from outside, from higher civilizations.

Consequently, the state is born, grows, dies, like a living being, its spatial expansion and contraction are natural processes associated with its internal life cycle.

F. Ratzel's conclusion that geographic space can act as a political force formed the basis of a new science - geopolitics. He was also one of the first to develop the "oceanic cycle" theory. In this theory, F. Ratzel substantiated the idea of ​​the progressive movement of the strategic centers of the world from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, and then to the Pacific Ocean.

Yu.-R. Kjellen, who was the first to use the term "geopolitics", considered the struggle for existence to be the essence of any "organism-state". War, in his opinion, is a specific form of manifestation of the struggle for geographical space. Yu.-R. Kjellen came close to creating a common geopolitical picture of the world.

The main popularizer and creator of the first geopolitical school is Karl Haushofer (1869-1946). In a huge number of his articles and books, the category "living space" played a central role. It appeared in his concepts under the influence of the works of F. Malthus (1766-1834), who came to the conclusion that population growth is subject to eternal biological laws and is faster (geometric progression) than the growth of food production. Therefore, wars are inevitable. Countries need to expand their "living space" in order to survive.

Geopolitics as a science arose at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, but there is still no precise formulation of this concept. This is a characteristic feature of all emerging sciences. Disputes about the object and subject of geopolitics have been going on for about a hundred years. As a rule, the concept of "geopolitics" is interpreted extremely broadly, which makes it difficult to determine the main features and range of problems inherent in this science, and therefore the boundaries of geopolitics are blurred, often moving into the field of other scientific disciplines, for example, philosophical, historical, economic, natural resource, environmental , international relations, foreign policy, etc.

The history and fate of geopolitics as a science is paradoxical. On the one hand, the concept itself seems to have become familiar and is actively used in modern politics. Geopolitical journals and institutions proliferate. The texts of the founders of this discipline are published and republished, conferences, symposiums are organized, geopolitical committees and commissions are created.

There are three historical stages in the development of geopolitics as a science:

1. Prehistory of geopolitics: there is no separate geopolitical branch of knowledge, and all ideas are integral part philosophical teachings and historical research.

2. Classical geopolitics: the end of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th centuries, when the main geopolitical theories and national schools of geopolitics were formed from individual ideas and concepts.

3. Modern geopolitics: after the Second World War (although some theories and strategies were formulated earlier, for example, the military strategy of air supremacy).

The idea of ​​geopolitics (Greek ge - Earth, politike - the art of government) existed already in ancient times. The relationship of soil and blood, space and power, geography and politics was noted by ancient scientists; ancient authors outlined the theory of the influence of the environment on political history. It is believed that the concept of geographical determinism is the most ancient source of geopolitical knowledge. Ideas about the influence of climate, soils, rivers, seas on history and man can be found in Hippocrates, Polybius, Thucydides, Aristotle, Cicero and others.

Ancient geopolitical thought was inherited by the Muslim East. It was most developed in the works of Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406). Of all geographical factors, he attached the greatest importance to climate. Only in countries with a temperate climate are people able to engage in cultural activities. The inhabitants of the south have no incentives for this, since they do not need durable dwellings, clothes, and they receive food from nature itself; the inhabitants of the north, on the contrary, live in extreme conditions and spend all their energy on obtaining food, building housing, making clothes. They do not have time for science, culture, education. Moreover, in countries with a temperate climate, the most active force is nomads, who have physical and moral superiority over settled peoples. Therefore, from time to time, nomads capture countries with a settled population and create empires. But after three or four generations, the descendants lose their positive traits, then a new wave of nomads appears from the steppes and history repeats itself.

The next stage in the development of geopolitical ideas was the Age of Discovery and the Age of Enlightenment. The French scholar Jean Bodin (1530–1596), in his Six Books of the State (1577), reawakened interest in the concept of geographical determinism. He explained the differences and changes in the state structure by three reasons: Divine will, human arbitrariness, and the influence of nature. He assigned the main place to geographical reasons, attaching special importance to the climate.

Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755) in his work "On the Spirit of Laws" (1748) formulated the creed of geographical determinism: "The power of climate is the first power on earth."

Starting from the 19th century, the palm in the development of geographical determinism passes to German scientists - G.-W.-F. Hegel, K. Ritter, A. Humboldt. These researchers criticized vulgar geopolitical determinism, approaching more mature and balanced interpretation of natural factors and their influence on political history. Thus, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831), in a special section of the introduction to his lectures on the philosophy of history, entitled “The Geographical Basis of World History,” emphasized: “One should neither exaggerate nor diminish the significance of nature; the mild Ionian climate, of course, greatly contributed to the elegance of Homer's poems, but climate alone cannot give rise to Homers, and does not always give rise to them; under the rule of the Turks, no singers appeared.

Continental European school of geopolitics in the late 19th - early 20th century. served as the basis of geopolitics as a science. In the works of European geopoliticians of this period - F. Ratzel, R. Kjellen, F. Naumann and others, the main ideas of the continental school were developed: the theory of living space, the laws of territorial expansion, the idea of ​​"Middle Europe", the concept of the continental bloc.

It is generally accepted that geopolitical thought in the proper sense of the word begins with the German geographer Friedrich Ratzel (1844-1904). His main works include Ethnology (1886–1888), Laws of Spatial Growth of the State (1896), Political Geography (1897), The Sea as a Source of the Power of Nations (1900), Earth and Life (1901). –1902), which were of great importance for the formation of the German geopolitical school.

F. Ratzel put forward the "basic" laws of expansion, or the spatial growth of the state:

coverage of politically valuable places;

continuous change in the scale of political spaces;

competition with neighboring states, during which the victorious state receives part of the territories of the losing states as a reward;

population growth and, as a result, the need for new lands outside the country.

A follower of F. Ratzel, professor of history and political sciences at Gotteborg (1901–1916) and Uppsala (1916–1922) universities, Rudolf Kjellen (1864–1922) in his work “The State as a Form of Life”, developing the ideas of Ratzel’s biological doctrine, argued that, as and people, states are sentient and thinking beings. Chellen gained fame in Europe and beyond its borders thanks to the philosophical system he developed for studying international relations, which he associated with the “natural laws” of international politics, when “states, developing within permanent or changing borders, growing or dying, under any circumstances retain certain personal features." He emphasized that, "like political science, geopolitics keeps the unity of the state in its field of vision, thereby contributing to the understanding of its essence, while political geography studies the earth's surface as the habitat of mankind in its relation to other properties of the Earth."

The scientific concepts of F. Ratzel and R. Kjellen caused a stream of geopolitical publications in Germany, which were united by the main idea: the state is a conscious organism fighting for living space.

The development of the geopolitical idea of ​​expanding living space was continued by the German retired general, professor of geography Karl Haushofer (1869–1946), who, on the basis of existing theories, created a scientific geopolitical school and founded the Institute of Geopolitics at the University of Munich. Together with the geopolitician E. Obst, in 1924 he founded the “journal of geopolitics”, turning it, in cooperation with like-minded people O. Maull, H. Lautenzach and S. Thermer, into the central body of German geopolitics.

It is important to note that in the first half of the XX century. in German geopolitics, along with the nationalist, the liberal-democratic trend was also developed, whose representatives were I. Parch, F. Naumann, K. Schmitt, and others. It originated during the Napoleonic invasion, which buried the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. Then the educated part of the Germans came to the conclusion that the formation of the future political order and the future of Germany should depend on the influence and attitudes not of politicians, but of the intellectual elite of the state in the person of poets and writers, historians and philosophers.

The founder of the French school of geopolitics was the professional geographer Vidal de la Blanche (1845–1918), who for the last 20 years of his life headed the department of geography at the Sorbonne. He sharply criticized F. Ratzel for overestimating the natural and spatial factors in the development of the state. The basis of the geopolitical concept of Vidal de la Blanche was the "continuous relationship between soil and man." He developed a new approach to assessing geopolitical processes - possibilism (from French possible - possible), according to which the geographical location can become a truly geopolitical factor, but it depends on the person living within the given space.

The followers and students of de la Blanche were such well-known French geopolitics as Jacques Ancel (1882–1943) and Albert Demangeon (1872–1940), who, in accordance with the requirements of the time, put forward the concepts of conditional borders and European integration, on which the geopolitical ideology is based. European Union.

Rear Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840–1914), a naval theorist and historian, practitioner of naval strategy, and an active politician, was the founder of the American school of geopolitics. Almost simultaneously with the English naval theorist and historian, Vice-Admiral Philip Howard Colomb (1831-1899), he created the theory of the so-called naval power, according to which dominance at sea is the main condition for victory in the war.

In the 30s and 40s. In the 20th century, the geographer Nicholas Spikeman (1893–1944), who headed the Institute of International Affairs at Yale University, became the greatest theoretician of the new American politics. He integrated Mahan's idea of ​​sea power and Mackinder's theory of Heartland from the standpoint of US interests. He defined geopolitics as a scientific discipline that develops the foundations of a country's security.

Lost in oblivion after 1945, blamed for the tragedy and misfortune of the last century, geopolitics has been revived only recently. Coming out of purgatory and oblivion, it has been reborn in a modest guise of a science of the intentions and behavior of actors on the international stage on a long historical basis and in the future.

At the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. geopolitics has freed itself from its former "pathology". But the question arises: does it have the right to exist, being "sandwiched" between geography and history? The answer is unequivocal: it certainly does. Geopolitics combined with economic and political geography is not a simple addition to the history of diplomacy or military history.

Attitudes towards geopolitics in our country began to change only at the end of the 80s of the last century. Significant changes have taken place in the international arena. The collapse of the USSR, the world socialist system, the unification of Germany, the wave of "velvet" revolutions in the countries of Eastern Europe led to the complete destruction of the "two-block" structure of international relations. The balance of power in the world has changed. The influence of Russia was reduced, which in territorial terms was thrown back to the borders of the 17th century. In addition, Russia turned out to be ideologically disarmed. As T. A. Mikhailov rightly points out, at present the country essentially lacks a theoretical basis for explaining Russia's foreign policy, goals and identity, and its future development.

The current stage in the development of geopolitics is characterized by a significant change in the geopolitical structure of the world, a revision of the main classical theories of geopolitics, the formation of new geopolitical schools corresponding to the new authors of modern geopolitics (American, European, Russian, New Chinese, New Indian, etc.), new directions, such as Atlanticism, mondialism , globalism, and new theories.

Significant differences between classical and modern geopolitics are dictated by technical and technological progress and the resulting changes in the economic and military strength of states - the main actors on the world geopolitical stage of the 21st century, the change in state, ethnic, confessional and civilizational borders. Therefore, the classical paradigm of the existence of the Land and the Sea was replaced by the paradigm of the development of new spaces - physical (air, underwater space, near and far space) and cultural (radio, television, Internet, film industry, literature, art).

Abstract on the topic:

"Stages of development of geopolitics"

Introduction

1. Formation of geopolitical science

2. The era of classical geopolitics

3. Development of geopolitics in 1930-1990

4. Modern geopolitics: state, problems, prospects

Conclusion

Bibliographic list

Introduction

The modern era of global changes brings to the agenda issues of the world order, key actors of the global political process and the essence of their interaction, requires a revision of the objective picture of the world, etc. This is what makes geopolitical issues extremely relevant today. This allows some researchers to speak of a "renaissance of geopolitics". At the same time, geopolitics, considering the political process in specific spatial conditions. Today it is necessary to consider not only space in its geographical, but also social, economic, etc. planes. Therefore, it is necessary to understand how modern geopolitics considers these planes. An important step towards such an understanding will be the consideration of the process of formation of geopolitics as a science. The idea of ​​what goal this line of thought set for itself, how the subject of geopolitics evolved, and what methods science used in the process of cognition, reveals the essence that can help in penetrating the essence of modern geopolitics.

At the same time, geopolitics is basically an integrative and interdisciplinary science. Geopolitics is not only at the forefront of political science, geography, history, sociology, but also includes, in addition to scientific, a powerful philosophical basis. It is possible to visually trace the process of mutual integration of various sciences and philosophies into a common geopolitical doctrine only if we consider the history of the formation of geopolitics.

In this paper, we will consider the main stages in the process of the formation of geopolitics as a science, describe the essence and specifics of each of the stages, and also note the main scientists and thinkers who contributed to the formation of geopolitics in each of the historical periods.

1. Formation of geopolitical science

The period from the appearance of the first ideas and concepts, which to some extent can be classified as geopolitical, to the formation of geopolitics as a separate and fairly independent discipline is extremely long - from Antiquity to the middle of the 19th century. It is important to note that in this period, geopolitics is not an integral and unified field of knowledge. Various philosophers, thinkers and scientists have separate ideas related to the geopolitical plane. That is why geopolitics in this period does not have a methodology, categorical apparatus, object and subject. This allows some researchers to call this period "prehistory of geopolitics". All geopolitical ideas in this period are to some extent connected with the idea that the life of states and peoples in all its diversity is largely determined by the geographical environment and climate. In other words, the ideas that arose during the prehistory of geopolitics are permeated with geographical determinism.

For the first time, geopolitical ideas appear in the works of thinkers of the era of Antiquity. Philosophers consider the geographical component of social processes. For example, Parmenides (back in the 6th century BC) spoke of five temperature zones, or belts, of the Earth, the state and social system (or a combination of them, because in this era thinkers did not see any special differences between the state and society; between the social and political spheres of life) have their own characteristics. Aristotle clarified the views of Parmenides, who drew attention to the superiority of the middle zone inhabited by the Greeks. It is important to clarify that the geopolitical ideas of ancient Greek thinkers were mainly of a practice-oriented nature and were based on empirical facts known to specific philosophers. In particular, the same Aristotle in the essay "Politics" writes about geopolitical (they can be called so from the standpoint of modern science) the virtues of the island of Crete, which allowed him to occupy a dominant position in the region. Aristotle, who studied this island state, notes a favorable location, which allows, on the one hand, to control transport and trade flows in the Aegean Sea (which puts the Greek colonies in a dependent position), and on the other hand, separating them from powerful enemies by sea.

The importance of geographical conditions for the internal and external life of states was also noted by Polybius, then by the Romans Cicero and especially Strabo.

Plato and Hippocrates left very interesting remarks about the influence of the geographical environment on the political activity of people, the customs and mores of different peoples. They wrote that the climate of the southern countries weakens the characters of people and they easily fall into slavery, while the climate of the north, on the contrary, tempers, and this leads to the spread of democracy. I must say that these ideas (naturally in a modified form) have not lost their relevance today. It is the location, size, climate and relationships with neighbors that some researchers explain the successful spread of democratic political regime in the Scandinavian countries, in North America and Western Europe and the difficulties in the process of democratization experienced by the countries of East and Southeast Asia, South America, etc.

In the Middle Ages, ancient ideas were preserved and developed by Arab scientists, among whom the most famous were the works of Ibn Khaldun (who lived in 1332-1406). He proposed the idea of ​​historical cycles, the essence of which was the migration of nomadic peoples and their capture of countries with a settled population. The historical cycle ends when the nomads who created an empire in the occupied territories lose their physical and moral advantages and finally "settle" in one place.

In the Age of Enlightenment and Modern times, the geographical paradigm in the field of studying social and political processes was even more entrenched in humanitarian thought, thanks to J.J. Rousseau, J. Lametrie, C. Montesquieu, D. Diderot and others. Geographical determinism in relation to socio-political reality reaches its apogee in Montesquieu's famous saying: "The power of climate is the first power on earth." However, soon, at the turn of the XVIII - XIX centuries. fundamentally new ones appear among geopolitical ideas - based on the criticism of geographical determinism. For example, G. Hegel, in his work “The Geographical Basis of World History”, insisted on the importance of not only geographical and climatic factors in social reality, but also called for considering sociocultural (value, identification, mental, moral, etc.) characteristics inherent in different nations regardless of their geographic location.

It is impossible not to note the contribution of Russian thinkers to the prehistory of geopolitics. In the 19th century in Russia, the geographical direction in social thought is represented by the works of B.N. Chicherin (considered not geographical and climatic, but cultural factors to be key. He wrote that the vastness of the Russian territory, the constant threat of external attacks determined the special importance of the strong-willed, spiritual qualities of the people during state building), A.P. Shchapova (geographer, historian and publicist who considered the interdependence of the historical past and the geographical position of the Russian Empire), S.M. Solovyov (noted the geographical predetermination of the emergence of Russian statehood and the most intensive economic development of land in the center of the Central Russian Upland). IN. Klyuchevsky was noted for many important geopolitical ideas. He wrote: “... the human personality, human society and the nature of the country - these are the three main historical forces that build human community. Each of these forces contributes to the composition of the hostel its stock of elements and connections, in which its activity is manifested and by which people's unions are tied and held. In other words, the thinker insists on using a combination of cultural and psychological, social and geographical factors in the analysis of social reality.

Thus, geopolitical ideas and concepts in this period were mostly fragmented and descriptive. Lacking a solid theoretical base, scientists, philosophers and thinkers relied on empirical experience, which prepared an extensive "database" for the development of geopolitics to a separate scientific discipline in the future.

Another important condition for the development of geopolitics was the development of the idea of ​​geographical determinism. By the 19th century, this idea had acquired completeness and integrity. This idea has become a solid and stable foundation of geopolitical science, which in its classical form started with this idea (developing, supplementing, modernizing or criticizing it). It can be said that to late XIX V. the basic conditions for the formation of geopolitics as an independent science are fully ripe.

2. The era of classical geopolitics

Second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries a key stage in the development of geopolitics. It was during this period that the subject and methodology of this science took shape in a fairly well-formed form (although in fairness it should be noted that even today these issues are debatable), the categorical apparatus of the young discipline appeared, and its main definitions were formulated. It is indicative that the term "geopolitics" itself was introduced into use at the beginning of the 20th century by the Swedish scientist R. Kjellen.

The works of the German geographer F. Ratzel were of great importance. In his work “Political Geography”, F. Ratzel puts forward a number of concepts that are still widely known today: “vital sphere”, “living space”, “vital energy”. In this and later work, On the Laws of the Spatial Growth of States, Ratzel was the first to come to the conclusion that space is the most important political-geographical factor. The main thing that distinguished his concept from others was the conviction that space is not just a territory occupied by the state and one of the attributes of its strength. Space is itself a political force: “Space in Ratzel's concept is something more than a physical and geographical concept. It represents the natural framework in which the expansion of peoples takes place.

R. Kjellen made a huge contribution to the formation of classical geopolitics. Seeing a living organism in each specific state, he believed that the state is an end in itself, and not an organization that serves the purposes of improving the well-being of its citizens. Kjellen endowed states “first of all with an instinct for self-preservation, a tendency to grow, a desire for power.

In The State as a Form of Life, Kjellen proposed a system of political sciences that is most closely related to geopolitics. In addition to geopolitics itself (understood more as political geography), this system included: ecopolitics (the study of the state as economic strength); demopolitics (the study of dynamic impulses transmitted by the people to the state); sociopolitics (study of the social aspect of the state) kratpolitika (the study of forms of government and power in relation to the problems of law and socio-economic factors). By the way, modern geopolitics, one way or another, takes into account all these components in the process of research.

A somewhat different direction is beginning to take shape within the rapidly developing American school of geopolitics. One of its founders, Admiral E. Mahen, made a significant contribution to the development of the idea of ​​"the influence of sea power" on history, social and political processes. He proposed and substantiated the main factors of maritime power, including: the geographical position of the state; the "physical configuration" of the state (the outline of the sea coasts and the availability of the necessary ports); the extent of the territory, calculated through the length of the coastline; the number of population (a category for assessing the ability of the state to build and maintain ships); national character and assessment of the ability of the people to engage in trade (sea power includes not only a military, but also an economic (trade) component); political nature of government.

Mahan believed that naval power is made up of the navy, merchant fleet and naval bases (naturally, in this case, not only quantitative, but also quality characteristics) . We also note that E. Mahen took a key part in the development of the US foreign policy doctrine, as well as the strategy and tactics of the Navy of this country. Mahen's ideas were successfully applied in practice throughout the first half of the 20th century.

Such definitions are more characteristic of classical geopolitics: “The geopolitical position is the specificity of the geographical location of an object, which provides it with the opportunity, or forces it, to carry out some external and internal political actions that are impossible or not necessary, with a different geographical location of the object” . That is, the influence of geographical determinism is still quite strong, and only a direct connection between the political system and geographic location object, while indirect and mediated connections often play an important role.

One of the first to draw attention to this was a French researcher, the founder of the so-called school. "Human geography" dealing mainly with the study of the impact of the geographic environment on man, P. Vidal de la Blache. He saw the influence of the environment not only in the formation of the personal characteristics of a particular individual, but also in the development and evolution of the political system. In particular, he also explains political liberalism by the attachment of people to the soil, and hence the natural desire to get it into private ownership. Vidal de la Blache and his followers (representatives of the French school of geopolitics) can be considered the founders of the sociocentric trend in geopolitical thought.

Speaking of classical geopolitics, one cannot fail to mention the British politician and thinker H. J. Mackinder. In his work “The Geographical Axis of History”, he proposed a global geopolitical model of the world, according to which the axial region of geopolitics is the internal space of Eurasia: X. Mackinder was the first to introduce the concepts of “Heartland” and “world island”, which no doubt entered the categorical core of the geopolitical Sciences. "The heart of the world", in his opinion, is formed by three continents - Asia, Africa and Europe. The "inner or marginal crescent" - a belt coinciding with the coastal spaces of Eurasia - is the zone of the most intensive development of civilization. "Outer or island crescent" - island states located entirely outside the border of the world island. X. Mackinder formulated his main geopolitical idea in three postulates:

Who rules Eastern Europe, dominates the Heartland;

Who rules the Heartland, dominates the world island;

Who rules the world island, dominates the world.

Interestingly, it was Russia that Mackinder assigned the role of a country occupying a key (middle) geopolitical position on a global scale. According to A.G. Dugin: “it was Mackinder who laid in Anglo-Saxon geopolitics, which became the geopolitics of the United States and the North Atlantic Alliance half a century later, the main trend: by any means to prevent the very possibility of creating a Eurasian bloc, the creation of a strategic union between Russia and Germany, the geopolitical strengthening of the Heartland and its expansion. The persistent Russophobia of the West in the 20th century is not so much ideological as geopolitical.

An important contribution to the development of theoretical and methodological foundations was made by N. J. Spykman. He identified ten main factors of the geopolitical power of the state: the surface of the territory; the nature of the boundaries; population size; the presence or absence of minerals; economic and technological development; financial strength; ethnic homogeneity; level of social integration; political stability; national spirit.

As for Russia, at the turn of the XIX - XX centuries. geopolitics has not taken shape as an independent and isolated discipline. That is why it is difficult to talk about the era of classical geopolitics in relation to domestic thinkers and scientists. However, geopolitical ideas and writings continue to emerge. It is possible to note the works of N.Ya. Danilevsky "Russia and Europe", V.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky “On powerful territorial possession in relation to Russia”, L.I. Mechnikov "Civilization and great rivers" and many others.

Thus, in the era of classical geopolitics, fundamental theoretical and methodological foundations were laid for the further development of science. There were grounds for the development of various paradigms within geopolitical thought. National scientific schools began to develop rapidly. There was a rejection of unambiguous and non-alternative geographical determinism, which made it possible to significantly expand the views of thinkers and include new facets in the subject of geopolitics.

It is important to note that without exception, all the classics of geopolitics based their views largely on the basis of their nationality and ideological attitudes. All of them, to one degree or another, participated in the development of military and foreign policy doctrines of their countries. That is why geopolitics is based not only on a scientific, but also on a subjective component, as well as a potential conflict between representatives of various countries and schools, which reduces the number of opportunities for internal integration of various areas of geopolitical thought.

3. Development of geopolitics in 1930-1990

An important stage in the history of the formation and development of geopolitics is directly related to the Second World War and chronologically occupies the period from 1933 to 1945. This stage is marked by a well-known connection between geopolitics and the corresponding political practice of the Third Reich. The ideologization of geopolitics during this period reaches its apogee in the works of German thinkers, the most famous of which is K. Haushofer.

Assessing the heritage of K. Haushofer and his colleagues, K.S. Hajiyev notes that the main pathos of their theoretical constructions was to formulate arguments and arguments designed to substantiate Germany's claims to a dominant position in the world. However, despite the inhumanity and radicalism of the views of German geopoliticians in this period, it should not be left without attention. Firstly, because he clearly demonstrated all the incorrectness of the excessive ideologization of geopolitical concepts, and secondly, German geopoliticians nevertheless proposed many meaningful and important ideas. In particular, it is Haushofer who owns one of the most popular definitions of geopolitics to this day: “Geopolitics is the science of the relationship between the earth and political processes. It rests on a broad foundation of geography, above all political geography... geopolitics aims to provide proper instructions for political action and to give direction to political life as a whole... Geopolitics is the geographical mind of the state.”

After the end of the Second World War, geopolitics, largely discredited by its connection with Nazism and fascism, needed to revise many of its provisions. A revision of geopolitics was also required because a fundamentally new system of world order was being formed, the results of scientific and technological progress changed the balance of forces between land and sea, and the emergence of nuclear weapons posed perhaps the first global threat to humanity. The revision of geopolitics has made this discipline more scientific and objective. It also allowed the final formation of various areas of geopolitics. Let's look at some (key) of them.

atlanticism. As the United States becomes a world power, post-war geopolitics refine and detail particular aspects of classical theories, while developing their applied areas. The fundamental model of "sea power" and its geopolitical prospects is being transformed from the scientific developments of individual military geographic schools into the official international policy of the United States. The practice-oriented concept assumes the presence of global interests, as well as global security, the implementation of which is possible by the forces of the strongest world power - the United States.

One of the classics of Atlanticism, D. Meinig, in his work "Heartland and Rimland in Eurasian History" emphasizes the need to take into account functional features to which states and peoples tend. Another follower of Speakman, W. Kirk, published a book whose title echoed the title of Mackinder's famous article "The Geographical Pivot of History", in which he developed the thesis regarding the central importance of the Rimland for the geopolitical balance of power.

Mondialism. This concept implies the need (possibility or even feasibility already at present stage) ideas about the presence of a single dominant force in the entire world space. Proponents of this model considered various options, which can lead to the formation of a single center of power. The end of the Cold War with the unconditional victory of one of the parties (moreover, the Western world was naturally considered as the winner most often); the destruction of both centers of power (due, for example, to the mutual use of nuclear weapons); mutual integration and merging of two systems with the formation of a new unified one.

An example of one of the most famous mondialist doctrines is the model of Z. Brzezinski, called the "convergence theory". The main idea of ​​the theory was to bring together the Atlantic and continental camps - the USSR and the USA - through overcoming the ideological contradictions of Marxism and liberalism and creating a new "intermediate" civilization of a mixed type. In "Game Plan. The geostrategic structure of the struggle between the USA and the USSR. According to the author, the ideas of freedom, humanism and democracy could unite the two approaching systems.

Geopolitical polycentrism. The third of the main directions of development of geopolitics in the second half of the XX century. operates with the idea that there are many centers of power, each of which, on the one hand, cannot solely control the others, and on the other hand, it is vital for it to cooperate with other centers of power. Such a view is typical, for example, for J. Spanner, who in the book “Games played by states. The Analysis of International Politics makes the assumption that the era of the "multipolar" world begins in the period of the "cold war" since 1962.

One should not think that geopolitical polycentrism is a peace-loving and idealistic concept, since its supporters do not discount the force factor and can claim the leadership of individual states. In particular, former US Secretary of Defense D. Schlesinger argues that the globe has become a single strategic theater where the United States must maintain a "balance", since they occupy a key strategic position. Hence follows the conclusion about the need for the presence of US armed forces in all key positions in the world.

As for the development of geopolitics in Russia, this science was not officially developed in the Soviet Union, however, a well-thought-out and rational geopolitical strategy suggests that geopolitical concepts were developed, apparently in the depths of the military and foreign policy departments. “Actually, geopolitics was developed exclusively by marginal “dissident” circles. The most prominent representative of this trend was the historian Lev Gumilyov, although he never used the term "geopolitics" or the term "Eurasianism" in his works, and moreover, he tried in every possible way to avoid direct reference to socio-political realities. Thanks to this "cautious" approach, he managed to publish several books on ethnographic history even under the Soviet regime.

As for Eurasianism itself, this direction is considered one of the closest to truly geopolitical in the history of Russian geopolitical thought. Eurasianism is a philosophical and political movement that got its name for a number of special provisions related to the history of Eurasia - a unique continent. The movement, which flourished among the Russian emigration in the 1920s and 1930s, is experiencing a rebirth in our time.

Eurasianism is an ideological-political and historical-cultural concept that assigns Russia as a special ethnographic world a “middle” place between Europe and Asia.

The origins of Eurasianism lie in the ideas of the late Slavophiles, such as K. Leontiev, N. Strakhov and N. Danilevsky. The beginning of Eurasianism was laid by the book published in the early 1920s. in Sofia, a collection of articles by N.S. Trubetskoy, P.N. Savitsky, G.V. Florovsky and P.P. Suvchinsky "Exodus to the East"). The authors of the collection, continuing the tradition of the late Slavophiles, proclaimed Russia a special cultural and historical type - "Eurasia", focusing on its connection with the Asian-Turkic world and contrasting it with "Europe", that is, the West.

It is important to note that it is the Eurasian concept (supplemented and revised) that has become widespread among geopoliticians in post-Soviet Russia.

Thus, the development of geopolitical thought in the second half of the 20th century generally followed the paths outlined by the founders of this science. A distinctive feature of this period in the development of geopolitics is the achievement of internal differentiation - several main schools have formed in the study of geopolitics, divided not so much by nationality, but on the basis of the subject and methods of research, the theories used, etc.

The revision of geopolitics that took place after the Second World War, on the one hand, made it possible to preserve the geopolitics developed in the era of prehistory and in its classical period, and on the other hand, made it possible for researchers to abandon the excessive ideologization of geopolitical theories.

4. Modern geopolitics: state, problems, prospects

Back in the 1970s. changes begin to take place in the world, which eventually led to a revision of the main provisions and paradigms of geopolitical science. The crisis of classical approaches in geopolitical science was caused by many reasons, both objective and subjective. Cardinal changes in the world associated with the onset of the post-industrial era in general and the beginning of the formation of the information society in particular. The accelerated process of globalization has set new tasks for geopolitics: the fight against new global threats; overcoming contradictions between the countries of the "golden billion" and the "third world"; creation of a new structure of international economic, political and legal systems; building a new post-bipolar world order. The geopolitical map of the world could not remain the same due to two interrelated phenomena: the “shrinking space” of the Earth, when the distances between people become shorter due to new means of transport and communication, intensification and growth in the number of information flows, etc.; and the expansion of the personal space of each individual: “Information permeates the entire social space ... this leads to the erasure of spatial, temporal, social, linguistic and other barriers, and in the social world a single and at the same time open information space develops (single in the sense that any societies and states, or any citizen can, if desired, access it and use it for their own purposes)” .

That is why new approaches to the essence of the geopolitical process were required. Such approaches M.Yu. Panchenko calls "non-classical". Among such approaches, the author singles out, first of all, neo-Marxism (which includes various areas: the world-system approach, gramschism, critical theory, etc.). Continuity in relation to Marxism betrays, firstly, a confrontational view of the nature of the relationship between the actors of the geopolitical process. Secondly, a critical attitude towards the existing world order, which is assessed as unfair and exploitative. Thirdly, the order in the world is viewed mainly through the prism of its class-economic nature. Examples include I. Wallerstein's world-system approach; the view of M. Hardt and A. Negri on the world as an empire with supranational power, where states are not an instrument for ensuring order and a key actor in the political process. Another non-classical paradigm is post-positivism. This approach, which originated in 1980-1990. focuses on the study of the totality of institutional and socio-cultural components of the geopolitical process (rules and norms, values ​​and identity, national and supranational interests). This approach was used in the works of K. Busa, S. Smith, S. Enlo, M. Zalewski and others. Finally, another non-classical paradigm closely associated with postpositivism is constructivism. Many researchers include it in the sociological approach to the analysis of international relations. As one of the representatives of this school, A. Wendt, notes, constructivism harasses from the fact that the geopolitical process is based, first of all, on social causes. Constructivists use a systematic approach to the study of this process, and the world system is not reduced to its material characteristics and capabilities, it also includes “general ideas” (norms, values, orientations, etc.).

Non-classical paradigms are characterized by certain theoretical and methodological limitations. They are characterized by some one-sidedness in understanding the essence and mechanisms of the geopolitical process. Constructivists underestimate the role of spontaneous factors in shaping the world order, positivists assign sovereign states an undeservedly small role in the geopolitical process, and so on. That is why today in geopolitics there is a need to use inter-paradigm and integrative approaches, when determinism (geographical, social or any other) cannot explain the fullness, versatility and scale of the geopolitical process.

Despite the emergence of new approaches to geopolitics, at the present stage important place continue to occupy more traditional approaches, which are primarily practice-oriented, which, however, have undergone a certain evolution in connection with the events of objective reality - the end of the Cold War, the acceleration of supranational integration (primarily within the borders of the European Union), the stormy and a powerful "third wave" of democratization, a structural crisis in the world economic system, etc. Let us consider two illustrative such approaches – neo-Atlanticism and neo-mondialism.

Supporters of the first believe that the victory over the USSR in " cold war will not bring peace and stability. Following the postulate about the confrontation between the heartland and the periphery, they predict the formation of new blocs and alliances that are ready to use force against their opponents, therefore, it is necessary to unite and prepare to repel the threat. In other words, the dualism of the geopolitical picture of the world remains, and the sharpness of the confrontation between world centers is likely to escalate in the near future. One of the most famous neo-Atlantic concepts is the idea of ​​S. Huntington about the imminent "clash of civilizations" coming.

Another concept is that neo-mondialism is not a direct continuation of historical mondialism, which initially assumed the presence of left-wing socialist elements in the final model. This is an intermediate variant between mondialism proper and atlantism. One of the brightest such concepts belongs to the Italian researcher C. Santoro. He believes that humanity is arriving at a transitional stage from a bipolar world to a mondialist version of multipolarity community. Other supporters of neo-mondialism believe that today there are tools that can promote global integration and unification. For example, J. Attali believes that the "Third Era" is coming - the era of money, which is the universal equivalent of value, since, equating all things to material digital expression, it is extremely easy to manage them in the most rational way. Under such conditions, the researcher sees the inevitable onset of the dominance of a market economy, liberal democratic ideology, and hence a planetary unification.

Despite all the differences between the two approaches described, one can see several important points of contact between the concepts: the presence of global threats, the need for unification (regional or global), accounting a large number factors in building a geopolitical picture of the world, etc. This indicates that today, despite the presence of many geopolitical concepts, there is a certain integration potential between them, which can develop over time. However, along with positive trends in modern geopolitics, there are certain problems.

One of the fundamental problems of modern geopolitics is the description of the emerging new world order and the compilation of a new multidimensional geopolitical map of the world. According to V.N. Kuznetsov, this problem contains several main points. First, there was a need for a larger theory than the theory of the world order. We are talking about the phenomenon of "world order"; secondly, for the analysis of the modern world, in addition to the political and economic dimensions, humanitarian, institutional, etc. are also needed; thirdly, an integral part of the category of "world order" should be its humanistic component; and, fourthly, a new “non-Western” understanding of a unified humanitarian paradigm appeared and became sufficiently isolated. In other words, modern geopolitics requires a multi-paradigm foundation that includes not only the postulates of various scientific disciplines, but also a powerful philosophical foundation, as well as an ideological component.

Another important problem of modern geopolitics is connected with ideology. Many different ideological concepts and views in modern world combined with the process of de-ideologization of real politics and the purely pragmatic nature of political relations (in this case, we are talking primarily about the supranational sphere). Different, sometimes diametrically opposed, ideological platforms give rise to a lot of obstacles to integration within geopolitical concepts.

It is important to say a few words about geopolitical thought in modern Russia: “Officially recognized as “fascist” and “bourgeois pseudoscience”, geopolitics as such did not exist in the USSR. Its functions were performed by several disciplines: strategy, military geography, theory of international law and international relations, geography, ethnography, etc. Actually, geopolitics developed exclusively by marginal "dissident" circles ... After the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, geopolitics became relevant again in Russian society ... national-patriotic circles were the first to take part in the revival of geopolitics (Den newspaper, Elements magazine) . The methodology was so impressive that some "democratic" movements seized the initiative. Soon after perestroika, geopolitics became one of the most popular topics of the entire Russian society. This is connected with the increased interest in the Eurasians and their heritage in modern Russia.

A distinctive feature of Russian geopolitics at the present stage is the widest range of geopolitical ideas and concepts - in the Russian discourse today all key geopolitical concepts are represented, from national patriotism, conservatism and traditionalism, to liberalism and neo-Atlanticism (seemingly, purely Western in its ideological and political orientation). approach). Another important feature characteristic of modern Russian geopolitics is the extreme ideologization of concepts. A prime example this is a very popular trend in Russian political thought, called "neo-Eurasianism". Despite a fairly clear differentiation (mainly in terms of the degree of radicalness of ideas about the most important goal of the state and society and how to achieve it) within this direction, some common and key points. This direction is based on the ideas of Savitsky, Vernadsky, Prince. Trubetskoy, as well as the ideologist of Russian national Bolshevism Ustryalov. The neo-Eurasianist “thesis of national ideocracy on an imperial continental scale is opposed simultaneously to both liberal Westernism and narrow-ethnic nationalism.” Russia is seen as the axis of the geopolitical "Big Space", its ethnic mission is unequivocally identified with the building of the empire. At the socio-political level, this direction unequivocally gravitates towards Eurasian socialism, considering the liberal economy a characteristic feature of the Atlantic camp. One of the most prominent representatives of neo-Eurasianism (remembered not only for his great contribution to domestic geopolitics, but also for many rather radical statements) is A. Dugin.

It is important to note that the ideologization of the views of Russian geopoliticians often makes many concepts dependent on the state ideology, which betrays a certain “non-freedom” of Russian geopolitical thought.

Thus, modern geopolitics is an interdisciplinary and integrative branch of knowledge that combines a powerful theoretical scientific and philosophical platform and vast empirical experience. An important condition for modern geopolitical concepts is the presence of an applied component in them. Interest in geopolitics continues today in different countries world, and the dynamism of the geopolitical process determines the rapid development of this science.

Despite the fact that modern geopolitics has some problems associated with its subjectivity and the large fragmentation of geopolitical concepts and theories, today the prospects for science are assessed as positive, moreover, it is today that some conditions have been outlined for the internal integration of geopolitics.

Conclusion

Geopolitics has a rather long and complicated history. It has gone through a number of milestones in its development. The first of them takes the longest period of time and is associated with the prehistory of geopolitics. The period from antiquity to the second half of the 19th century actually only prepared the ground for the formation of geopolitics.

In the second half of the 19th century, the era of classical geopolitics begins - its isolation and formation as an independent science. In addition to the fact that the term “geopolitics” itself came into use during this period, science also received its subject, methodology and a certain theoretical base.

The extreme ideologization of geopolitical concepts led to the fact that this science became dependent on the radical ideology of Nazism. This period of the 1930s - 1940s. in the development of geopolitics, researchers tend to single out especially, since it was this period that put researchers in front of the need to revise the main provisions.

In the second half of the 20th century, various schools of geopolitics emerged with a powerful theoretical basis. In the United States, Canada and Western European countries, national centers for the study of geopolitical problems were created, which are engaged not only in theoretical research, but also make a huge contribution to the foreign policy strategies of these states.

Cardinal changes in the world associated with the onset of the post-industrial era in general and the beginning of the formation of the information society in particular. The accelerated process of globalization has set new tasks for geopolitics: the fight against new global threats; overcoming contradictions between the countries of the "golden billion" and the "third world"; creation of a new structure of international economic, political and legal systems; building a new post-bipolar world order.

The process of development of geopolitics is organically and closely connected with the process of development of human civilization - the emergence of new states, the expansion of territories, the nature of the relationship between them. The practice-oriented nature of geopolitics forced researchers to quickly respond to ongoing changes, whether it be a scientific and technological revolution, democratization, globalization, large-scale war, etc.

Modern geopolitical concepts are extremely multifaceted. they are mainly of a multi-paradigm and integrative nature. Despite the fact that in modern theories the continuity of classical geopolitics is clearly traced, today researchers consider and take into account not only geographical, but also socio-cultural, institutional, and psychological components.

Usage modern approaches: structural-functional, neo-institutional, systemic, socio-cultural, etc. allowed geopolitics to significantly expand its subject and methodology and turn into a related discipline at the intersection of political science, geography, history, sociology, psychology, philosophy, etc. It is thanks to this that we evaluate the prospects for the development of geopolitics in the 21st century extremely high.

Bibliographic list

1. Baris, V.V. On the question of the stages of development of geopolitics and its historical and philosophical foundations [Text] / V.V. Baris // Bulletin of Moscow University. – Series 7. Philosophy. - 2003. - No. 3. - S. 74-90.

2. Gadzhiev, K.S. Introduction to geopolitics [Text] / K.S. Hajiyev. – M.: Logos, 2002. – 432 p.

3. Dugin, A.G. Eurasianism: from philosophy to politics. Report at the Constituent Congress of the OPOD "Eurasia" [Electronic resource] / A.G. Dugin. - M., 2001. - Access mode: http://www.esmnn.ru/library/dugin/desig_evrazizm/42.htm

4. Dugin, A.G. Fundamentals of geopolitics [Text] / A.G. Dugin. – M.: Arktogeya, 1997. – 590 p.

5. Kuznetsov, V.N. World order XXI: outlook, world order. Experience of humanitarian and sociological research [Text] / Under the general. edit. V.N. Kuznetsov; Journal "Security of Eurasia", Department of Sociology of Security, Faculty of Social Sciences, Lomonosov Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov. - M. : Book and business, 2007. - 679 p.

6. Kuznetsova, A.V. The necessity and possibility of the theory of the world order of the XXI century. [Text] /A.V. Kuznetsova // Power. - 2009. - No. 5. – pp. 42-45

7. Montesquieu, Sh. L. On the spirit of laws [Electronic resource] / Sh.L. Montesquieu // Montesquieu. Selected works. – Access mode: http://bookz.ru/authors/montesk_e-6arl_-lui/montes01/1-montes01.html.

8. Mahan, A.T. The influence of sea power on history 1660-1783 [Electronic resource] / A.T. Mahan. - St. Petersburg: Terra Fantastica, 2002. - Access mode: http://militera.lib.ru/science/mahan1/index.html.

9. Pantin, I.K. Discussion. Civilizational model of international relations and its implications (scientific discussion in the edition of Polis) [Text] / I.K. Pantin, V.G. Khoros, A.A. Kara-Murza, A.S. Panarin, E.B. Rashkovsky [and others] // Polis. - 1995. - No. 1. – pp. 121-165

10. Panchenko, M. Non-classical paradigms for studying the world order [Text] / M. Panchenko // Power. - 2009. - No. 4. – pp. 121-127

11. Sudorogin, O. The new role of the information space in the XXI century [Text] / O. Sudorogin // Power. - 2009. - No. 1. – pp. 27-33

12. Tikhonravov Yu.V. Geopolitics: Textbook [Text] / Yu.V. Tikhonravov. - M.: INFRA-M, 2000. - 269 p.

13. Fokin, S.V. The history of the emergence and development of geopolitics as a science [Electronic resource] / S.V. Fokin. – Access mode: www.humanities.edu.ru/db/msg/86327. - Screen title

14. Huntington, S. A clash of civilizations? [Text] /S. Huntingtonge per. from English. //Policy. - 1994. - No. 1. - S. 33-49.

Tikhonravov, Yu.V. Geopolitics: Textbook [Text] / Yu.V. Tikhonravov. - M.: INFRA-M, 2000. - S. 13.

Ibid., p. 57.

Baris, V.V. On the question of the stages of development of geopolitics and its historical and philosophical foundations [Text] / V.V. Baris // Bulletin of Moscow University. – Series 7. Philosophy. - 2003. - No. 3. - S. 74-90.

Montesquieu, Sh. L. About the spirit of laws [Electronic resource] / Sh.L. Montesquieu // Montesquieu. Selected works. – Access mode: http://bookz.ru/authors/montesk_e-6arl_-lui/montes01/1-montes01.html

Klyuchevsky, V.O. Russian history: Full course of lectures: In 3 kn..Kn. 1. [Text] /V.O. Klyuchevsky. - M.: [B.n.], 1993. - S. 10.

Tikhonravov, Yu.V. Geopolitics: Textbook [Text] / Yu.V. Tikhonravov. - M.: INFRA-M, 2000. - S. 52-53

For more information about the essence and features of sea power, see: Mahan, A.T. The influence of sea power on history 1660-1783 [Electronic resource] / A.T. Mahan. - St. Petersburg: Terra Fantastica, 2002. - Access mode: http://militera.lib.ru/science/mahan1/index.html.

Pugachev V.P. Introduction to political science. Dictionary - reference book [Text] / V.P. Pugachev. - M .: Aspect press, 1996. - S. 23

Dugin, A.G. Fundamentals of geopolitics [Text] / A.G. Dugin. - M.: Arktogeya, 1997. - S. 48

Gadzhiev, K.S. Introduction to geopolitics [Text] / K.S. Hajiyev. – M.: Logos, 2002. – P. 11.

See Dugin, A.G. Eurasianism: from philosophy to politics. Report at the Constituent Congress of the OPOD "Eurasia" [Electronic resource] / A.G. Dugin. - M., 2001. - Access mode: http://www.esmnn.ru/library/dugin/desig_evrazizm/42.htm

See Huntington, S. A Clash of Civilizations? [Text] /S. Huntingtonge per. from English. //Policy. - 1994. - No. 1. - S. 33-49.

See Kuznetsov, V.N. World order XXI: outlook, world order. Experience of humanitarian and sociological research [Text] / Under the general. edit. V.N. Kuznetsov; Journal "Security of Eurasia", Department of Sociology of Security, Faculty of Social Sciences, Lomonosov Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov. - M .: Book and business, 2007. - S. 7-8.

Dugin, A.G. Fundamentals of geopolitics [Electronic resource] / A.G. Dugin. - M.: Arktogeya, 1997. - Access mode: http://polbu.ru/dugin_geopolitics/

Tikhonravov, Yu.V. Geopolitics: Textbook [Text] / Yu.V. Tikhonravov. - M.: INFRA-M, 2000. - S. 232-240.

The term "geopolitics" has become one of the most popular in our modern political lexicon when it comes to the problems of domestic and foreign policy, international relations and the modern world order.

The Russian meaning of the word "geopolitics" comes from the German, formed in turn from the Greek words "GEO" (land, space) and "POLITIKA" - state. This word was first used by the Swedish political scientist, Germanophile R. Kjellen in 1916. He and subsequent researchers used it to designate a science that reveals the influence of the spatial factor on the policy of states.

In the Soviet Union, geopolitics was considered a bourgeois pseudoscience that justified the territorial expansion of the imperialist powers. Geopolitics is the science of political elites, and it is no coincidence that, by the decision of the Ministry of Education, it is taught at the faculties of management, specializing in state and municipal administration.

Like any science, geopolitics has its own object and subject of study. object geopolitics research is space. In modern conditions, it has become more multidimensional than at the time of the birth of science. Today, in the context of the globalization of the planet, along with space, geopolitics has to take into account other factors to a greater extent than before.

Subject geopolitics are regularities, forms and methods of exercising control over space by various subjects. Therefore, the most concise definition of geopolitics can be as follows:

Geopolitics- this is a science or a system of knowledge about the control of space. The basic laws of geopolitics include the law of fundamental dualism (duality), which manifests itself in the eternal confrontation between two types of civilizations:

• Marine: Athens, Carthage, UK, USA.
• · Land: Sparta, Roman Empire, Germany, Russia - USSR -RF, China.

Maritime and land civilizations have their own, unique features that characterize the susceptibility of civilizations to democracy, scientific and technological progress, the presence of individualism or collectivism in them.

According to the founders of geopolitics, land powers develop within clearly defined boundaries, they are characterized by: conservatism, traditionalism, settled way of life, collectivism, etc.

They are opposed by the opposite type of civilization - the sea, which is characterized by: greater dynamism in development, susceptibility to technical progress, profit, entrepreneurship, individualism.

For centuries, continental (land) states have dominated sea states, but since the era of great geographical discoveries, the balance of power has been gradually changing, sea powers have reached world power, the world domination of Anglo-American capitalism has become the apotheosis of this process.

Two fundamental concepts follow from this basic law of geopolitics:

• · Heartland(heart of the earth), providing control over the "world island" and
• · Rimland, proceeding from the need to control the coastal zone of Eurasia, which will be discussed in more detail below.

We can say that geopolitics explores the patterns of dependence of the strength or weakness of the state on what space it occupies. These patterns can be formulated as follows:

1. control over space is lost by those entities that do not have the ability to hold or conquer the optimal territory

loss of control over space by one geopolitical entity always means its acquisition by another (countries of Eastern Europe)

2. the subject that controls the key points of the space receives the benefits. Vasiliev, L.S. History of the East [Text]: in 2 volumes. / L.S. Vasiliev. T.1 - M .: "Higher School", 1998 - 65s ..

Geopolitics performs a variety of features:

• cognitive, studying the trends of geopolitical development of countries and peoples,
• Prognostic, giving a forecast of the development of geopolitical forces, fields, international conflicts, etc.
• Management, manifested in the collection and analysis of empirical information, the development of specific management decisions and recommendations,

"Space", "borders", "national interests and mechanisms for their implementation", "living space", "North", "South", "balance of power", "clash of civilizations", etc.

Atlanticism(synonymous with the West) - a concept that unites the western sector of human civilization, opposes Atlanticism

Eurasianism- a geopolitical concept that unites the eastern sector of human civilization.

Speaking about the functions of geopolitics, it should be borne in mind that geopolitics is a science, first of all, of power and for power, geopolitics is called the science of political elites or the science of ruling, because it is consistent only when its theorists can "impose" their views on the creators Politicians or (more rarely) politicians become creators of geopolitics.

Geopolitics has gone through three main stages in its development:

• 1. The beginnings of geopolitics, this stage is associated primarily with the theories of geographical determinism (predestination) and covers the 2nd half of the 10th-9th centuries;
• 2. Classical geopolitics - the 1st half of the twentieth century, the geopolitics of German Nazism is considered its apogee;
• 3. Post-war revision of geopolitics.

The essence of the revision lies in the fact that until the middle of the twentieth century, geopolitics was predominantly of a traditional (geographical) nature. At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, geopolitics becomes more complex.

Geopolitics, as a rule, is not common for several states, even if they are allies, it comes, first of all, from national interests and national security. Space will always play an important role in politics.

Despite the fact that in the modern world the political weight of the country ensures the development of new technologies and communications, the geographical factor is one of the vital tasks of self-preservation of the state as a cultural and historical community in a certain space.

Questions for self-examination:

• 1. Name the subject and object of geopolitics
• 2. Uncover the essence of the functions of geopolitics
• 3. Explain the basic law of geopolitics

Geopolitics is the science of the relationship between the earth and political processes. It rests on the broad foundation of geography, above all political geography, which is the science of political organisms in space and of their structure. Moreover, geopolitics aims to provide the proper vehicle for political action and to betray the direction of political life as a whole. Thus, geopolitics becomes an art, namely the art of directing practical politics. Geopolitics is the geographical mind of the state.

K. Haushofer

The emergence of geopolitics as a science at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries was determined not only by the logic of the development of scientific knowledge, but primarily by the need to comprehend new political realities. This science appeared at a time when the world as a whole was divided between the main opposing centers of power. A new division of the world is, in essence, a “redistribution of what has already been divided”, i.e. the transition from one owner to another, not from mismanagement to the owner. The redistribution of the world has led to the fact that the level of conflict in the world has increased significantly. This circumstance prompted scientific research aimed at improving the struggle of the main political forces on the world stage. At the end of the 20th century, it was once again confirmed that the economic factor is one of the leading ones in the geopolitical balance of power.

In essence, geopolitics is one of the leading social sciences of the 21st century. This is due to the fact that, due to many circumstances, it is the 21st century that should become the era of either a new, most radical expansionist redistribution of the world in the history of mankind, laying the foundation for subsequent outbreaks of national liberation wars, or, conversely, a reasonable rationalization of international relations on the principles of self-restraint by developed countries of their selfish expansionism and ensuring the sustainable development of all peoples of the world.

So far, the danger of the first, expansionist, path is stronger than hopes for the peaceful harmonization of mankind. This is evidenced by the commitment of the strong countries of the world to the doctrines of the New World Order under the control of the United States, Greater Europe under the military umbrella of NATO, Greater China, etc., as well as the selfish attitude of the West to what is happening in the post-Soviet space, the frank desire to turn it into new, independent states, including Russia, into the neo-colonial raw materials appendages of the countries of the “golden billion”, i.e. in geopolitical terminology, the Great Atlantic space, which is again dominated by the United States.

Geopolitics is a synthetic science, it is multifaceted, as life itself is complex and contradictory. Since the end of the 20th century, myth-creating doctrines, inflated self-esteem, biased, unscientific assessments of the interests of various subjects political activity prevail not only over the theoretical concepts generated by Russian geopolitical centers dealing with the issues of Russian diplomatic relations, but also over common sense.

In Russia, unfortunately, the belief in a brilliant, charismatic leader, who has only to wave a white handkerchief, and everything will be fine, has not yet been outlived. Geopolitics as a synthetic science teaches that the world process, although it is greatly influenced by the individual, nevertheless has an objective nature of a natural-historical nature, it is a vector of complex interaction of many of its constituent forces and wills, objective needs and subjective interests. The latter include the need for raw materials, especially energy resources, which Russia is so rich in. With a population of 145 million people (about 2.5% of the world's population), it owns (stores in its bowels) approximately 30% of the world's mineral reserves. friends." Therefore, the arguments of many radical liberal reformers about the disinterested interest in Russia, love for its peoples on the part of Western and Eastern politicians and the military are the songs of sweet-voiced sirens, inviting gullible victims into the arms of octopuses. Control over the geographic space, its strategic bases, nodes, points, ultimately remains the main geostrategic task of our "friends" - rivals.

Another serious defect in the myth-making of radical liberal reformers is that they propose to throw overboard the ship of history everything positive in the previous development of Russia, destroy everything old, blacken the entire history of geopolitical relations of the USSR, forgetting the ancient truth: people, the state, society, abandoning their the past has no future.

From a theoretical point of view, this is a substitution of dialectical logic (the logic of Hegel and Marx) with a formal, systemic analysis - a fetishization of subjectivism (the role of a person with a white scarf), regulating long-term planning - by relationships of individuals, management of geopolitical processes - by gravity, highly professional managerial activity - by arrogant dilettantism. And the bad thing is that until recently, the indicated methodology was transferred to the plane of real politics under the tenacious, worn out stamp “no other way is given.” The consequences of such a "policy", resulting in blind experimentation on millions of people, are experienced by the peoples of Russia and dozens of peoples of other countries in various regions of the globe. All this leads to the growth of anarchy and crisis phenomena, to the cult of strength and permissiveness, when the strength of an armored fist prevails over the strength of reason, humanism, and philanthropy.

Geopolitical knowledge is deep scientific knowledge, which means that it is objective, comprehensive, devoid of ideological narrow-mindedness and mythology, no matter how simple and attractive they are. This is the main value, the practical significance of geopolitics as a science.