Theory of technologies of geographical determinism in international relations

Discussion and conclusion

In recent decades, there has been a tendency among philosophers and scientists to underestimate spatial representations, to believe that they no longer have the same meaning as before (Kobayashi, 2007). It is important to emphasize here that proponents of imaginative geography (Said, 1979; Sharp, 2009) and critical geopolitics (Toal, 1996; Kelly, 2006), on the contrary, believe that geographical imagination and discourse about the fate of certain territories can affect international relations more than real physical geography. In fact, we can talk about a special geographical space -imaginary and discursive. International relations largely depend on this space. In particular, the importance of practical geopolitical considerations may depend on the stereotypes of the international community. In this regard, it is symptomatic that the term “balkanization” and its connection with the Balkans, which negatively affected the entire region in the eyes of the world community, attributed to it a tendency to fragmentation of state territory and instability, although a number of peoples of the Balkan Peninsula had their own statehood before the seizure of their territories by various empires (Todorova, 2009, p.33).

International stereotypes in the imaginary and discursive geographical space have played a cruel joke on Ukraine. Since 1991, it has not been able to join either the EU or NATO, as it was considered as a zone of influence of Russia's interests, and sometimes as a temporarily separated Russian territory (Marshall, 2015). In other words, the space of geographical discourse and imaginative geography can determine international relations more than objective geographical reality. At the same time, the imaginary and discursive geographical space can be the object of geopolitical propaganda technologies that operate with historical and ethnic images. Such geographically determined propaganda technologies in international relations are the technology of returning native lands and the technology of protecting (or reuniting) ethnic minorities living on the territory of other states. As a rule, these technologies are used by aggressive states to justify violations of international law.

As we can see, the theory of technologies of geographical determinism provides a large scale for critical theoretical and practical understanding of international relations in the modern world, rehabilitates geography as a factor space context of social relations in political and economic dimensions on the world stage, allows you to think and act geographically and technologically, in other words, contextually and effectively.

Geographical determinism is as multifaceted as the geographical spaces in which international relations operate are heterogeneous. It can be strengthened or weakened by technologies. Based on this, developed countries seek to use geographical determinism to their advantage with the help of technologies and at the same time neutralize its negative impact on the implementation of national interests on the world arena. Technologies enable states to act effectively to achieve their goals. Nevertheless, only taking into account geographical determinism can make this effectiveness strategic and guarantee a secure future. It is fair to say that Russia's neo-imperialist geoeconomic technologies with an emphasis on energy carriers and underestimation of the importance of geographical determinism by European governments have created unprecedented problems for European countries in the field of energy and economic security.

1. The theory of technologies of geographical determinism in international relations allowed us to identify a number of technologies that have shown their effectiveness in various geographical dimensions. We distinguish these technologies based on the specifics of various types of spaces as environments for deploying effective activities to realize the national interests of states in the international arena. Space is the central and constitutive concept of classical geography as a science. Physical space allowed us to distinguish technologies of land, sea, air and space. These are telurocratic, thalassocratic, aerocratic, and astrocratic technologies.

2. The political space has made it possible to distinguish between geopolitical technologies. The economic space has become the basis for identifying and understanding various geoeconomic and geofinancial technologies. The cultural space served as the basis for the analysis of geocultural technologies. The strategic space allowed to consider geostrategic technologies, defining the technology of allied binding as the leading one.

3. The space of imaginary geographical space made it possible to understand geopolitical propaganda technologies.

References

1. Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. New York: Profile Books.

2. Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The grand chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives. NY: Basic Books.

3. Casey, E.S. (2009). Getting Back Into Place: Towards a Renewed Understanding of the Place- World. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

4. Cohen, A. (2009). Russia: the flawed energy superpower. Luft G, Korins A (eds) Energy security challenges for the 21st century: a reference handbook. ABC CLIO, Santa Barbara.

5. Cohen, S.B. (1990). The World Geopolitical System in Retrospect and Prospect. Journal of Geography, 89(1), 2-12.

6. Congressional Record. (1945). Vol. 91, 79th Cong., 1st sess. Wash. D. C.: GPO, 3. (Congressional Record, 1981-1998, 2014. The Library of Congress).

7. Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W. W. Norton & Company.

8. Diamond, J. (2011). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin Group.

9. Diamond, J. (2020). Geographic determinism. What does «geographic determinism» really mean?

10. Doel, M. (1999). Poststructuralist Geographies, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

11. Dolman, E.C. (2005). The geographical pivot of outer space. Global geostrategy: Mackinder and the defence of the West / Brian W. Blouet. NY: Routlegde, 142-164. Douhet, G. (1942). The command of the air. New York: Coward McCann.

12. Fulbright Act. Public Law 584, 79th Cong., 2nd sess., August 01. (1946). A Decade of American Foreign Policy. Basic Documents, 1941-1949. Washington: Dept. of State, 568-569.

13. Gilmartin, M. (2009). Colonialism/Imperialism. Key concepts in political geography. London: SAGE, 115-123. Gray C.S. (1999). Inescapable Geography. Geopolitics, geography, and strategy / editors, Colin S. Gray, Geoffrey Sloan. London; NY: Routledge, 161-177.

14. Hong, S. (2010). Environmental and Geographic Determinism: Jared Diamond and His Ideas. Grand Theories and Ideologies in the Social Sciences. NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 141-158. DOI: 10.1057/9780230112612_9.

15. Johnson, W. & Colligan, F. (1965). The Fulbright Program: a History. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

16. Judkins, G., Smith, M., Keys, E. (2008). Determinism within human-environment research and the rediscovery of environmental causation, Geographical Journal, 174,1, pp.17-29,

17. Kelly, P. (2006). Acritique of critical geopolitics. Geopolitics. 11 (1), p.24-53.

18. Kobayashi, A. (2017). Spatiality. D. Richardson (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Geography Volume XIII, Chichester: Wiley, 6765- 6772.

19. Liuhto, K. (2010). Energy in Russia's foreign policy, electronic publications of Pan-European Institute

20. Luttwak, E. (1990). From Geopolitics to Geo-Economics: Logic of Conflict, Grammar of Commerce. The National Interest, 20, 17-23.

21. Luttwak, E.1(994). The endangered American dream: how to stop the United States from becoming a Third-World country and how to win the geo-economic struggle for industrial supremacy. NY: TOUCHSTONE. Mackinder, H.J. (1904). The Geographical Pivot of History. Geographical Journal, 23.

22. Marko, V. (2017). Toward a Demarcation of Forms of Determinism. Organon F 24(1), pp.54-84.

23. Marshall, T. (2015). Prisoners of geography: ten maps that tell you everything you need to know about global politics. London: Elliott & Thompson.

24. McLuhan, M. & McLuhan, E. (2017). The Lost Tetrads of Marshall McLuhan. NY; London: OR Books.

25. McLuhan, M. (1987). Letters of Marshall McLuhan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26. Meilinger, Ph.S. (2000). The Paths of Heaven: The Evolution of Airpower Theory. New Delhi, India: Lancer Publishers.

27. Merriman, P. (2022). Space. NY: Routledge.

28. Peet, R. (1985). The social origins of environmental determinism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 75, 309-333.

29. Said, E. (1979). Imaginative Geography and Its Representations: Orientalizing the Oriental. Orientalism. NY: Vintage.

30. Savona, P., Jean C. (1996). Geoeconomia. Il dominio dello spazio economico Copertina flessibile. Milano: Franco Angeli.

31. Sharp, J.P. (2009). Geographies of Postcolonialism. London: Sage Publications.

32. Sluyter, A. (2003). Neo-Environmental Determinism, Intellectual Damage Control, and Nature/Society Science. Antipode, 35 (4), 813-817.

33. Staden, van A. (2007). Between the Rule of Power and the Power of Rule: In Search of an Effective World Order. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

34. Steam, G.E. (1967). McLuhan, hot & cool; a primer for the understanding of & a critical symposium with a rebuttal by McLuhan, edited by Gerald Emanuel Stearn. New York, Dial Press.

35. Stulberg, A.N. (2005). Moving beyond the Great Game: The geoeconomics of Russia's influence in the Caspian energy bonanza. Geopolitics, 10(1), 1-25

36. Sullivan, R. (201)1. Environmental Determinism and Geopolitical Performance. Geography speaks: performative aspects of geography. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing LTD, 123-150.

37. Toal, G. (1996). Critical geopolitics: the politics of writing global space. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

38. Todorova, M.N. (2009). Imagining the Balkans. NY: Oxford University Press.

39. Vysotskyi, O, Vysotska O. (2020). Technologies of Public Diplomacy: Methodological Principles and Practical Potential. Epistemological studies in philosophy, social and political sciences, 3, 1, 139-147.

40. Wigell, M. (2016). Conceptualizing regional powers' geo- economic strategies: neo-imperialism, neo-mercantilism, hegemony, and liberal institutionalism. Asia-Europe Journal, 14, 135-151

Размещено на allbest.ru