4 ms·

I disagree. These lines of reasoning have always been there. Logistic thinking, and thus geopolitics, has always [i.e. for at least the past century] taken terr

I disagree. These lines of reasoning have always been there. Logistic thinking, and thus geopolitics, has always [i.e. for at least the past century] taken terrain and climate into account. Selling the old as new is a basic marketing ploy. And geopolitics isn't immune to this. Clausewitz talked about logistics and terrain, Sir Lawrence Freedman has too, W. Gardner did, Robert E. Pape too (in the optic of air power).

mrleinad 4y ago
Maybe the previous post meant widespread reasoning? I doubt any of those you mentioned are known by many people.
- hikingsimulator 4y ago
  But that's the point in a sense. Zeihan sells a vision of geopolitics that is what popular science is to science. It is not bad, but it does shortcuts and simplifications to fit in a one-hour talk ala TedX where seats are sold for four or five figures. It was fine until Zeihan and co started getting the mic at institutions like the US military academies or some congress special interest groups. I'm unfavorable when popular [discipline] may swing around to influence what it was meant to cover.
- samus 4y ago
  Clausewitz is a well-known military theorist, usually mentioned in the same sentence with Sun Tzu and Machiavelli.
pydry 4y ago
>I disagree. These lines of reasoning have always been there. Due to America's geographical impenetrability the threat of military encroachment or invasion is virtually zero. As such it gets downplayed in political discourse to irrelevance. It's often almost impossible for Americans to see international politics through the prism of geographic threat because it has simply never affected them. Meanwhile the entirety of the Russian psyche is centered around it (along with many others). The west routinely writes this off as "oh, just propaganda". The lines of reasoning have been there forever but judging from the number of people who treat geography as a non entity when attempting to explain foreign behaviors, sentiments and attitudes it might as well be a fresh discovery.

mrleinad 4y ago

Maybe the previous post meant widespread reasoning? I doubt any of those you mentioned are known by many people.

hikingsimulator 4y ago
But that's the point in a sense. Zeihan sells a vision of geopolitics that is what popular science is to science. It is not bad, but it does shortcuts and simplifications to fit in a one-hour talk ala TedX where seats are sold for four or five figures. It was fine until Zeihan and co started getting the mic at institutions like the US military academies or some congress special interest groups. I'm unfavorable when popular [discipline] may swing around to influence what it was meant to cover.
samus 4y ago
Clausewitz is a well-known military theorist, usually mentioned in the same sentence with Sun Tzu and Machiavelli.

pydry 4y ago

>I disagree. These lines of reasoning have always been there. Due to America's geographical impenetrability the threat of military encroachment or invasion is virtually zero. As such it gets downplayed in political discourse to irrelevance. It's often almost impossible for Americans to see international politics through the prism of geographic threat because it has simply never affected them. Meanwhile the entirety of the Russian psyche is centered around it (along with many others). The west routinely writes this off as "oh, just propaganda". The lines of reasoning have been there forever but judging from the number of people who treat geography as a non entity when attempting to explain foreign behaviors, sentiments and attitudes it might as well be a fresh discovery.