Geopolitics Theory Cannot Serve as a Methodology for Analyzing & Changing the International Situation
An Interview with Zhou Li, May 2024
Author Zhou Li, is Former Deputy Director of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. (Yazar Zhou Li, Çin Komünist Partisi Merkez Komitesi Uluslararası Departmanı Eski Başkan Yardımcısı)
Makale Özeti:
Son yıllarda, hem yurt içinde hem de yurt dışında giderek daha fazla akademisyen ve siyasetçi, jeopolitik teorisini benimseyerek bunu çağdaş uluslararası ilişkiler teorisinin önemli bir bileşeni olarak görmekte ve uluslararası durumun mevcut durumu ve gelecekteki trendleri analiz etmek için jeopolitik teorisini bir yöntem olarak kabul etmektedir. Bu jeopolitik teori, bir asırdan fazla bir süredir uluslararası ilişkilerde önemli bir etki yaratmıştır. Jeopolitik teorisinin özü, coğrafyanın siyaseti belirlediği ve coğrafi çevrenin uluslararası ilişkileri şekillendirdiği görüşüne dayanmaktadır. Batılı ülkelerin farklı tarihsel dönemlerdeki temsilcilerinin jeopolitik teorisini ısrarla savundukları söylenebilir. Onların bu tezleri ne kadar karmaşık veya “derin” görünse de nihayetinde, bu görüşler Batılı büyük güçlerin daha fazla sömürge, nüfuz alanı, ham madde kaynakları ve yatırım fırsatları ele geçirmesine yardımcı olmak amacıyla oluşturulmuştur. Jeopolitik teorisi, Batılı büyük güçlerin dünya genelinde yeni-sömürgecilik, faşizm ve hegemonya uygulamalarını ilerletmelerine ve sürdürmelerine hizmet etmektedir. Şüphesiz ki jeopolitik teorisi, emperyalist ve hegemonik dünya görüşünün doğrudan bir ifadesidir.
Aynı zamanda, Çinli Komünistler herhangi bir uluslararası olguyu -siyasi, ekonomik, ekolojik, güvenlikle ilgili ya da güncel sıcak çatışma başlıklarını – analiz ederken, Marksist perspektife ve sınıf analiz yöntemine bağlı kalmalıdır. Ayrıca, üretici güçler ile üretim ilişkileri arasındaki çelişkinin toplumsal gelişimin belirleyici gücü olduğu görüşünü ve yöntemi benimsemelidirler. Bu nedenle, uluslararası ilişkileri ve uluslararası durumun evrimini analiz etmek için jeopolitik teorisini mantıksal bir başlangıç noktası olarak almak ya da onu bir metodolojik çerçeve olarak kullanmak gerçekçi değildir. Çünkü, jeopolitik teorisini temel almak, uluslararası durumdaki gelişmeler ve değişimler konusunda yanlış değerlendirmelere yol açacak ve dolayısıyla belirli politikaların oluşturulmasını ve uygulanmasını olumsuz etkileyecektir. Çin’in dış ilişkiler teorisi, Marksist uluslararası ilişkiler teorisi üzerine inşa edilmiştir ve Yeni Dönemde Çin’e özgü Sosyalizm Teorisine olan güvenin temel dayanaklarından birini oluşturmaktadır. Hiç şüphesiz ki, bu dayanaklar Çin’in bağımsız bilgi sisteminin önemli bir bileşeni olarak ele alınmalı ve daha da geliştirilmelidir.
Abstract： In recent years, an increasing number of scholars and political figures both at home and abroad have embraced geopolitics theory, deeming it as a crucial component part of contemporary international relations theory and deeming it as an instrument for observing and analyzing the current state and future trends of the international situation. This geopolitics theory has exerted significant influence on the international community for over a century. The essence of geopolitics theory lies in the fact that geography determines politics, and the geographic environment dictates international relations. It can be asserted that representatives of Western countries in different historical periods have assiduously advocated geopolitics theory. No matter how convoluted or “deep” their arguments may seem, ultimately, their arguments are designed to assist Western major powers in seizing more colonies, spheres of influence, seizng sources of raw materials and investment opportunities.
Geopolitics theory facilitates their practice and advancement of neo-colonialism, fascism and hegemonism throughout the world. Indisputably, geopolitics theory is a direct reflection of imperialist and hegemonic worldview. It is also true that Chinese Communists, when observing and analyzing any international phenomenon, be it political, economic, ecological, security-related or related to hotspots, must adhere to the Marxist perspective and method of class analysis, as well as the viewpoint and methodology that the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production is the decisive force in social development. It is definitely not possible to use geopolitics theory as the logical starting point for analyzing international relations and the evolution of the international situation, or even use it as a methodological framework for analyzing issues. The reason is that this would result in misjudgments on the development and changes in the international situation, and thus negatively influence the formulation and implementation of specific policies. China’s foreign relations theory is constructed on Marxist international relations theory and constitutes an essential underpinning of the confidence in Theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era. There is no doubt that it should be included and developed as a prominent component of China’s independent knowledge system.
Keywords: Geopolitics Theory, Geographic Environment, Imperialist Worldview, International Relations Theory, Class Analysis
Journal Reporter: The concept of geopolitics has been widely discussed and exercised in the international commnity in recent years. In China, there are also many scholars who use this concept to analyze the current state and future tendencies of the international situation, even taking it as a methodological framework. First and foremost, of what should we be mindful?
ZHOU Li : The concept of geopolitics has been widely discussed internationally in recent years. There are discussions on this topic in Western countries, Russia and some developing countries. Scholars, including some in China, have consciously and subconsciously adopted geopolitics theory, regarding it as a significant component of contemporary international relations theory and an instrument for observing and analyzing the current state and future tendencies of the international situation. Nevertheless, it is of paramount importance to note that the term “geopolitics,” or any related discussion, is absent from the works of Chairman Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, Xi Jinping and other leaders. Furthermore, official Central Committee documents, including the recent reports of the 19th and 20th National Congresses of the CPC and the decisions of the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee, have never used the term “geopolitics” or such analysis. Central party and state leaders have frequently spoken of facing risks and challenges, even depicting them as being in tumultuous and challenging times, but they have never mentioned facing “geopolitical risks and challenges.”
Journal Reporter: Is geopolitics theory also widely accepted in Russia?
ZHOU Li: Yes. There are two recent instances. First, in the recently published book, Research on the Economic Development of Russia (2022-2023), Russian Professor Sergei Sudlin, one of the editors, explicitly highlights in the foreword the “rapidly changing geopolitical situation in the spring of 2022.” Sergei Sudlin considers geopolitical factors, to a certain extent, as an “external shock” in the realm of economic development, exerting a significant influence on the nature and trends of Russia’s economic growth. Several other authors in this book also adopt the new geopolitical reality or environment as the title of their articles. Evidently, Russian friends adopt an extremely affirmative stance towards geopolitics and consider it as an established premise for discussing the fluctuating economic situation in Russia.
I also came across an article entitled “Mass Geopolitical Education Must Be Undertaken,” authored by renowned Russian scholar Alexander Dugin in late September 2024. Dugin is a leading figure in Russian Neo-Eurasianist geopolitical school, and Dugin has claimed to be a disciple of Karl Haushofer, an early German geopolitician.
In this article, Dugin asks who is fighting against whom, and why? Where are the dividing lines between civilzations and blocs? Dugin argues, “Only geopolitics can offer a clear and comprehensible explanation for all this.” Dugin further argues that such practices have been restrained in Russia although the United States has consistently conducted studies and taken actions in accordance with geopolitical principles. Dugin credits Putin with being the first Russian leader to focus on geopolitics, precisely for this reason. and that the nation has merely embarked on the journey of grasping and attaining a comprehensive awareness of what has transpired in the contemporary international relations. However, Dugin acknowledges the difficulty of overcoming the “hypnosis” of domestic liberals, economists and Western influences, a process requiring time. Dugin claims that only after the commencement of the special military operation did the Russian authorities truly grasp the laws and rules of geopolitics.
But, Dugin argues that this is far from sufficient. The problem, according to Dugin, resides in the inability of the Russian education system to attribute the deserved significance to geopolitics.Dugin calls for mandatory geopolitics education, not only throughout the Russian education system but also in all levels of government, from the central to local levels and within the military, demanding that all officials and military personnel pass at least a basic geopolitics exam. Dugin even warns, “Underestimating geopolitics will inflict direct calamity upon Russia.”
Journal Reporter: So, how has the theory of geopolitics evolved, and what are its principal tenets?
Zhou Li: Geopolitics, or geopolitics theory, originated from the political geography established by German scholar Friedrich Ratzel in 1879. The essence of geopolitics is that geography determines politics, and the geographic environment determines international relations. According to this theory, to comprehend the current and future trajectory of the world, one should initially take into account the geographical locations of the involved countries and regions, encompassing their territory, resources, population, etc. In addition, it is necessary to evaluate the influence of oceans and land on their ecological and cultural development. From this, it is possible to infer the future strategic situation of the world or region and the political actions of the relevant countries.
Early proponents of this theory include Friedrich Ratzel and Karl Haushofer from Germany, Rudolf Kjellen from Sweden, Halford Mackinder from the UK, and Nicholas Spykman and Alfred Thayer Mahan from the United States. After World War II, Saul K. Padover became a leading figure. Post-Cold War representatives include Samuel P. Huntington, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Stephen K. Bannon.
Early geopolitics theory drew upon Darwin’s theory of evolution and Spencer’s notion of the state as an organism, maintaining that states are land-dependent organisms whose survival and functioning are profoundly influenced by their location and territorial traits. The need for adequate “living space” thus made territorial expansion a requisite means for strengthening national power. In his 1901 essay,“The Laws of the Spatial Growth of States,” Ratzel proposed seven laws that Ratzel considered universal: i) State space expands with the development of culture; ii) State space expands in tandem with the development of ideas, trade, production and missionary work; iii) State space undergoes expansion by means of connecting and absorbing smaller states; iv) The expansion and contraction of borders can be used as indicators of a state’s growth and changes in strength; v) States in their development constantly assimilate the most valuable elements from the natural environment, coastlines, riverbeds, plains and resource-abundant areas; vi) The primary impetus for territorial expansion stems from external states, emerging from the disparities in the level of civilization in neighboring territories; and vii) The tendency of merging and absorbing weaker states is transmitted among countries and propels further territorial expansion as their power increases. Haushofer stated clearly: “Geopolitics is one of the powerful approaches for people to fight for the just distribution of the earth.” This blatant and aggressive theory of world division emerged as a crucial foundation for imperialist states in the early 20th century to formulate their national development strategies and policies, directly giving rise to the outbreak of World War I and World War II, inflicting colossal suffering on humanity, and severely undermining international peace and stability. Hitler’s Mein Kampf directly embraced Haushofer’s concept of “Lebensraum”or living space (Haushofer 1934). Consequently, geopolitics theory was sidelined for a time after World War II.
Journal Reporter: The issue is that geopolitics theory did not vanish completely as a consequence. How did it further evolve thereafter?
ZHOU Li: This needs to be examined in the context of the international situation of that time. After World War II, the international landscape underwent significant changes. The rise of national liberation movements freed a large number of colonial and semi-colonial territories from the shackles of imperialist powers, establishing them as politically independent countries. The Soviet Union’s defeat of Nazi Germany, China’s victory over Japanese imperialism, and the socialist paths taken by China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, Cuba and numerous Eastern European nations gave rise to the establishment of a socialist camp led by the Soviet Union, which exerted considerable influence on the global stage.
Simultaneously, capitalism also witnessed new developments, transitioning from general monopoly capitalism to state monopoly capitalism. Western powers, having amassed substantial means of production and consumption during and after the war, leveraged their industrialization and achievements in modern science and technology to form transnational monopoly organizations (multinational corporations and banks), intervening directly and indirectly in international economic life on a large scale through various means and methods. They monopolized international commodity markets, international financial markets, international energy markets and international labor markets, reaping super-profits from these activities.
The United States initiated the Marshall Plan, offering substantial assistance to facilitate Europe’s economic recovery, which enabled its control and occupation of European markets. In an effort to sustain its predominant position in Europe, the United States established NATO in 1949, extending the Marshall Plan to the military realm and binding numerous developed countries in Western Europe into a powerful military and political force to counter the Soviet Union.
After the mid-20th century, the majority of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, although having gained political independence, were still encumbered by their prolonged history of colonialism and semi-colonialism. The levels of productive development of these countries were subpar, with underdeveloped industrial and agricultural sectors, particularly in the manufacturing field, and their domestic markets were limited in size. Within the deepening of the system of the international division of labor, these countries gradually formed distorted and single-product industrial structures centered on the extraction and production of one or two raw materials or primary products. As a consequence, they were relegated to the position of raw material suppliers in the global market, evolving into the “periphery” of the capitalist economic system and being subject to continuous exploitation and oppression by imperialist states.
During this period, the focus of geopolitics theory shifted from territorial expansion to colonial expansion and capitalist expansion. Scholars such as Andre Gunder Frank from Germany, Immanuel Wallerstein from the United States, Raúl Prebisch from Argentina and Samir Amin from Egypt, all put forward, from their respective standpoints, the so-called “dependency theory.”
This theory posits that the world can be categorized into two groups of core countries (developed countries) and peripheral countries (developing countries). The former assume a dominant and ruling position in the global economic system, while the latter are reliant on the former and play a subordinate role. Peripheral countries can only subsist by relying on core countries for capital, markets, and technology. “Dependency theory” re-established the relationship between the ruling state and the colony, furnishing a theoretical framework for developed capitalist countries to perpetuate their control and exploitation of developing countries in the new context. This disguised form of geopolitics theory spread extensively. Developed countries and their theorists, without any exception, set their propaganda apparatuses in motion, disseminating this view to developing countries as a “natural order.” In fact, for the developing countries political independence, in the absence of simultaneous attainment of economic independence, cannot produce genuine sovereignty. The root cause of this phenomenon lies not so much with developing countries themselves but rather with the developed capitalist countries that exploit and restrain them. As time went by, the North-South gap broadened, and the North-South issue has become increasingly salient.
The US scholar Parag Khanna puts it more bluntly: “Globalization and geopolitics have embarked on a new alliance, but the core concerns for all parties remain energy, power, stability and conflict.” He added, “Nevertheless, as long as the United States possesses both strategic foresight and the capacity to adapt to circumstances, integrating principle with flexibility, the changes in geopolitics can be made to serve American interests” (Parag 2009, 391).
Journal Reporter: After the Cold War, the transformation of geopolitical discourse from territorial expansion to colonial and capital expansion persisted. What novel changes have emerged along with this?
Zhou Li: The collapse of the Soviet Union, the upheavals in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the socialist bloc brought about significant changes. With the transition of capitalism from state monopoly to international monopoly, the developed countries of the West grafted neoliberalism onto geopolitics theory. In 1990, the “Washington Consensus” founded on neoliberal doctrine has emerged, inducing Latin American countries and the newly empowered democratic forces in former Soviet and Eastern European nations to adopt a policy and strategy of “market fundamentalist” transformation.
This entailed forcefully implementing “shock therapy,” which encompassed drastically reducing and eliminating government functions and roles, comprehensively and abruptly removing regulations on prices, exchange rates, foreign trade and goods, privatizing all state-owned enterprises and fully opening domestic markets, including financial markets, to Western countries. Within a short period, this paralyzed and severed these countries’ industrial chains, supply chains and financial networks, leading to substantial economic decline, extensive unemployment and social disorder. They were compelled to seek large-scale so-called economic assistance from the West and to implement “reforms” based on prescriptions from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. As a result, they found themselves bound to the “chariot” of Western countries, experiencing a loss of sovereignty and becoming “personally dependent” and “path-dependent” on developed Western countries.
Neoliberalism, in theory, repudiates public ownership, socialism and state intervention. In policy, Neoliberalism advocates for liberalization, privatization and marketization. In its strategic and tactical implementation, it has advanced “dependency theory” to a further extent, with the aim of transplanting the American model to Russia, Eastern Europe and Latin America as extensively as possible. It demands that these countries rapidly “transform” in terms of their state systems, electoral systems, ideology, legal protections, economic operations, financial systems and cultural infiltration, so as to enable their integration into the US-led system of capitalist globalization. This facilitates greater control by the superpower—the United States and its dominant transnational monopoly capital groups—over the trajectory of resource markets, labor markets and capital markets worldwide, allowing them to extract higher, greater and more rapacious monopoly profits.
According to Kissinger, “The American model of economic management has become the standard for much of the world.” Kissinger argued that “for developing countries to achieve economic growth, they must rely on private capital, and private capital insists on a stable legal system and a satisfactory rate of return under reasonable risks. Hence, any nation aspiring to be competitive must participate in the globalization process on both the economic and political accounts.” He concludes: “It is indeed comforting to observe that privatization has become prevalent and trade barriers have been removed, thanks in no small part to the persuasive arguments of American economists and the patient guidance of the U.S. Treasury Department and the International Monetary Fund” (Kissinger 2023, 210-211)
In the aftermath of the Cold War, numerous countries, including Russia, consciously or unconsciously adopted this theory as a foundation for revising and adjusting their foreign political, economic and military strategies and tactics.
Journal Reporter: Looking back over 100 years of development and change in international relations theory, it’s evident that many analyses and applications are closely associated with the geopolitical theories advocated by Western countries, demanding our utmost vigilance. If we were to summarize concisely, what is the fundamental essence of geopolitics theory?
Zhou Li: It can be asserted that the ceaseless promotion of geopolitics theory by Western powers throughout distinct historical eras, irrespective of how intricate or “profound” the rhetoric may be, ultimately functions to obtain more colonies, spheres of influence, sources of raw materials and investment locations for major Western powers. It serves to advance their neo-colonialism, fascism and hegemonism. Even Kissinger’s renowned commentaries and propositions regarding international relations, especially about Sino-American relations, are predicated on this so-called geopolitical theory. Undoubtedly, the geopolitical theory that has been incessantly played up and induced time and again is a direct manifestation of imperialist and hegemonic worldviews. This is the fundamental crux of geopolitics theory.
Equally incontrovertible is that we, the Communist Party of China, cannot take geopolitics theory as the logical starting point for analyzing international relations and the evolution of the international situation. In our perspective, geographic determinism is fundamentally unsustainable.
Journal Reporter: What evidence demonstrates the untenability of geopolitics theory?
Zhou Li: Firstly, although the geographical environment, as a necessary and frequent condition for human material life, can accelerate or decelerate the pace of social development, it is not the primary factor determining the nature of a country’s social system, whether it will experience economic and social development, or its transition from one system to another.
Historical materialism has all along attached importance to the role of the geographical environment and analyzed it realistically and practically. For instance, in the absence of rivers, lakes and oceans, it is an arduous task to develop fisheries and shipping; without certain soil and climatic conditions, it is difficult for agriculture to develop; without grasslands, it is impossible to develop large-scale livestock farming. The significance of the oil industry in the Middle East, the extraction of natural gas in Turkmenistan and Russia, the agriculture in the world’s three major black soil zones (the United States, the Chinese-Russian Far East, and Ukraine), and the reserves of rare earth in China, Vietnam, Brazil and Russia, all attribute their prominent global standings to their respective natural environments.
In the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, the effect of geographical environment on human production, life and the development of nations and peoples is frequently addressed. Nevertheless, they never used the term “geopolitics.” Why not? Due to the fact that from their viewpoint the world is not merely a creation of natural history shaped by geography (continents, land, mountains, oceans, lakes, islands, sky, climate, etc.). In tandem with the creation and alteration of these geographical elements, a concomitant process of social history unfolds, one in which humanity, by means of labor, harnesses, transforms and controls the geographical environment, and through which humanity evolves from a classless society to a class-based society and then to a society with antagonistic classes. In this regard, the effect of the geographical environment on the advancement of nations and societies ought not to be exaggerated and take on a deterministic role.
In his 1890 letter to Joseph Bloch, Engels pointed out, “According to the materialist view of history, the determining factor in history is, in the final analysis, the production and reproduction of actual life … but the various factors of the superstructure … also have a bearing on the course of the historical struggles of which, in many cases, they largely determine the form” (Engels [1890] 2001, 34-35). The organization and execution of the production and reproduction of real life in human society are not dictated by the geographical environment, but by human beings themselves, by individual persons, including laborers, as well as landowners and capitalists who, through their control over resources such as land and factories, ceaselessly and unjustly appropriate the fruits of laborers’ production.
Throughout the historical trajectory of slave societies, feudal societies and capitalist societies, this pattern recurrently emerges. After capitalism transitioned from general monopoly to state monopoly, capitalist states all embraced the system of “separation of powers” and the party political system built upon it. They engaged in a rotation of power, ensuring that the working people are constantly ensnared in their predicament. In the second half of the 20th century, many developing countries were compelled to opt for a development route that blended capitalism with feudalism. The vast majority of laborers who do not possess the means of production, along with the comprador class serving transnational monopoly capital groups and the national bourgeoisie, have all along coexisted as opposing poles in these countries, involved in production and the appropriation of its products.
Secondly, geopolitics theory, that is, entails geographical determinism is absurd because it fails to account for the history and current status of social development. For instance, why can people’s social lives exhibit such immense differences or changes in the same natural environment or region? Take Africa as an illustration: As the cradle of humanity, Africa, throughout its documented history of six thousand years, has witnessed tremendous social transformations, ranging from primitive communalism to slave-owning systems, feudalism (chiefdoms) and capitalism. Nevertheless, during this period, the changes in the geographical environment of the African continent have been extremely slow, almost negligible. Likewise, why, in widely disparate natural environments, among diverse regions and peoples across the world, can societies experience approximately similar periods of colonial exploitation? Throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, across extensive stretches of Asia and Africa, and in a multitude of South Pacific island nations, from the 16th to the mid-20th century, innumerable areas were subject to the colonial domination of various European and American powers.
The error of geographical determinism lies in its incapacity to recognize that the natural environment and social life are two qualitatively different entities, with distinct patterns of change. The rate of change in the natural environment is slow in contrast to the rapid evolution of human society, a difference that renders them non-comparable. Mao Zedong, in his On Contradiction, points out: “Changes do take place in the geography and climate of the earth as a whole and in every part of it, but they are insignificant when compared with changes in society; geographical and climatic changes manifest themselves in terms of tens of thousands of years, while social changes manifest themselves in thousands, hundreds or tens of years, and even in a few years or months in times of revolution.
According to materialist dialectics, changes in nature are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in nature. Changes in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in society, that is, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between economic base and the superstructure as well as the contradiction between classes and the contradiction between the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes society forward and gives the impetus for the supersession of the old society by the new” (Mao [1937] , 1965, 314).
Thirdly, according to Marxist class analysis, when humanity steps into the capitalist stage, the principal struggle within states, nations and peoples is manifested as the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The focal point of this struggle lies in oppression versus liberation, enslavement versus emancipation, and exploitation versus anti-exploitation. Hence, Marx and Engels, in The Manifesto of the Communist Party, made the appeal, “Workers of the world, unite!” for the collective overthrow of the rule of the bourgeoisie.
With the advent of monopoly capitalism, the struggle among Western powers to divide the world for markets, raw materials and spheres of influence primarily presented itself as a conflict between the imperialist powers and the colonized and semi-colonized nations. It also expressed itself as a struggle within the ranks of the imperialist powers, with one power seeking to dominate or weaken another. The core issue was the merciless exploitation of the working class and peasantry by the monopoly bourgeoisie, in conjunction with the endeavors of colonized and semi-colonized nations to achieve national liberation. This is the reason why Lenin, in 1920, made the appeal, “Workers of the world and oppressed peoples, unite!”
After the end of the Cold War, with the rapid development of science and technology and international division of labor, globalization and multipolarity flourished. However, the era of imperialism perseveres and remains in a state of continuous evolution. Under the sway of the law of uneven development in capitalist politics and economics, the international monopoly capital group headed by the United States, drawing upon the advantageous position it has amassed over centuries through the exploitation and oppression of developing countries, has been vigorously striving to impose a unipolar world order on a global scale.
US plus the West on one side and China and Russia on the other
The so-called tools of human rights, democracy, bourgeois legal systems and neoliberalism have been utilized to hinder and bind developing countries. The struggle is increasingly centered on the confrontation between the US and the West on one side and China and Russia on the other within the framework of “one superpower and multiple strong powers,” as well as the strife between Western developed countries and the “Global South.” The essence of this conflict resides in the choice between maintaining hegemony or opposing it, and the core issue rotates around containment versus counter-containment, control versus counter-control, and the erosion of national sovereignty versus the reinforcement of national sovereignty.
None of these developments are determined or changed by geographical determinism. This underscores the fundamental disparity between historical materialism and historical idealism.
Fourthly, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the changes in Eastern Europe were not preceded by changes in the geographical environment. Instead, problems arose within the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries themselves. The Communist Party leaders, as the ruling power in these nations, deviated from Marxism-Leninism, voluntarily relinquishing the Party’s leadership role in the state. They lost the ability to resist infiltration, subversion and evolution instigated by Western developed countries, leading to the ultimate dismemberment of these states. The resulting changes in territory, borders, population and resource control paved the way for the eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union, significantly impacting the global political and economic landscape of the post-Cold War era, culminating in conflicts such as the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 and the ongoing war in Ukraine.
One of Putin’s most famous statements is: “The collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.” Is this statement accurate? The Soviet Union as a state ceased to exist, it was dismembered, and it disappeared geographically. The platform for the Soviet Union to conduct its political, economic, commercial, scientific and educational activities on the world stage vanished. The military competition with the US and NATO also came to a halt. The original demands in various aspects either vanished completely or were reduced by more than half. A significant portion of the most crucial products in the world market was compelled to undergo reallocation and adjustment. In this regard, it can also be asserted that the former Soviet states and Eastern European countries have endured the most colossal geopolitical calamity.
However, at a higher level, the dismantling and fragmentation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics signifies much more than a geopolitical calamity. It indicates the annihilation of the first socialist state in history that was capable of undertaking a long-term competition with the capitalist world, a leading power that was subsequently fragmented into fifteen separate nations. Furthermore, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was also destroyed and divided into seven countries; Czechoslovakia was split in two; and so forth. The socialist bloc was severely undermined. These events constituted a profound calamity on the path towards a classless society where working people are in governance of themselves, a stark contrast to the capitalist system built on the exploitation and oppression of the working class. The international communist movement consequently fell into a slump. This is bound to leave us with a heart full of grief and a seething sense of outrage.
The international financial and monopoly capitalist group, primarily represented by the United States, persists in exploiting, oppressing and restricting developing countries by means of propaganda, diplomatic coercion, resource plundering, illegal economic sanctions, its advantages in international institutions and the signing of unequal treaties that undermine sovereignty, even going to the extent of resorting to war to fulfill its aims. Today, the USA and its Western allies, under the guise of establishing a “rules-based international order,” adopt neo-colonialist strategies to further consolidate Western dominance across political, economic and social spheres, such as effecting regime change by imposing sanctions, implementing blockades and manipulating electoral processes, forcibly seizing resources, and imposing their values and culture upon other countries.
Recognizing the historical trends of multipolarity and economic globalization, XI Jinping has proposed the “Belt and Road” Initiative, building a community with a shared future for humankind, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative. By embracing the principle of “extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared interests,” China actively engages in mutually beneficial cooperation with countries around the world in the aspects of material production, cultural exchange and civilizational development. China encourages BRICS countries, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and other international and regional organizations to participate actively in reforming and building the global governance system.This promotes a multipolar world characterized by equality and order, and a globalized economy that is inclusive and beneficial for all. It is a powerful tool to unite developing countries in their struggle against the hegemony and power politics pursued by the USA and its Western allies. While in the midst of conflicts, the “Global South” can, by striving for coexistence, seeking cooperation and achieving development, be continuously strengthened to strive for a more just and equitable international order. “Only by liberating all humanity can the proletariat finally liberate itself.”
It is worth noting Putin’s thinking has been transformed. In a speech delivered at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Putin explicitly argued that the current state of global affairs was a direct outcome of the attempts to impose a unipolar world order on international affairs (Putin 2008, p. 372). In October 2021, he stated at the Valdai Club, “The capitalist model, which is now the foundation of most countries’ social structures, has exhausted its potential.”[1] In March 2023, in a new version of Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept, Putin emphasized, “One of Russia’s foreign policy priorities is to eliminate the negative effects of United States’ and other unfriendly countries’ monopolistic control over global affairs, creating conditions for all nations to resist neo-colonialism and hegemonic ambitions.”[2]
Furthermore, in his address at the Valdai Club on November 7, 2024, Putin stated that the current irreconcilable struggle over the new and old international order lies not in its being a contention for power or geopolitics, but rather in the dispute over whether future states and peoples can forge mutual relations founded on the principles of mutual respect for culture and civilization.[3]
Fifthly, despite the ongoing advancement of globalization and multipolarization, as well as the continuous occurrence of technological revolutions, the world has still not been able to break away from the bourgeois era explained by Marx and Engels, nor has it managed to step out of the imperialist era identified by Lenin—an imperialist era experiencing a period of profound global change. In this era, the struggle between us, as a collective of “Global South” countries, and the developed countries of the West, as another collective, ultimately represents the conflict between the oppressed peoples, countries and nationalities of the world on the one hand, and the international monopoly bourgeoisie and the international financial oligarchy on the other hand. It is a class struggle that is unfolding within human society in the 21st century. This struggle constitutes an objective reality that is not susceptible to changes by individual willpower and it will be with us for a long time to come. The peril of geopolitics resides in its endeavor to veil the truth by taking geography as the sole determinant of everything. This serves to erase the historical truth of centuries of brutal exploitation and oppression of weaker nations and peoples by imperialist powers, and to facilitate the continuous dominance of today’s international financial oligarchy.
Therefore, when analyzing any international phenomenon, be it political, economic, ecological, security-related, or a current hotspot, it is necessary to adhere to the Marxist perspective and methodology of class analysis and uphold the perspective that the contradiction between productive forces and production relations is the decisive force in social development. Geopolitical theory should by no means be adopted as the logical starting point for analyzing international relations and the evolution of the international situation, or even used as a methodological approach for analyzing issues. The reason is that taking such an approach will result in misjudgments about the development and change of the international situation and have an impact on the formulation and implementation of specific policies.
Journal Reporter: Returning to the initial point about the understanding and grasp of this issue by our central leadership, how should we unify our understanding of the development and evolution of international relations and the international situation into XI Jinping Thought on Diplomacy?
Zhou Li: In 2018, at the Central Foreign Affairs Work Conference, General Secretary Xi Jinping stated the importance of “establishing a correct worldview when grasping the international situation.” He emphasized, “Throughout human history, world development has always been the result of the interplay and interaction of various contradictions. We must deeply analyze the evolutionary laws of the international situation during this period of global transition, accurately grasp the basic characteristics of China’s external environment during the convergence of history, and comprehensively plan and promote our foreign affairs” (Xi Jinping [2018] 2020, 427-428)
The report to the CPC’s 20th National Congress explicitly points out that in the new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, it is imperative to “accelerate the construction of the discipline system, academic system, and discourse system of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics.” In April 2022, during an inspection of Renmin University of China, Xi Jinping emphasized, “Accelerating the construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics ultimately means building an independent knowledge system for China.” This is an extremely vital task that the social science front in China is in urgent need of addressing. It holds crucial significance for the future development of China, the advancement of the international communist movement and the prospective development of human society.
Over the past 75 years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, our Party, in accordance with the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, has consistently pursued an independent and sovereign foreign policy of peace, assiduously adhered to the path of peaceful development, extensively and profoundly befriended with countries all over the world, firmly opposed hegemonism and power politics, determined its stance and policies on hot issues based on the rights and wrongs of the matter, steadfastly upheld justice and fairness, participated in mediation efforts, actively engaged in reforms of the global governance system, and gradually formulated a complete set of foreign relations theories based on an abundance of practical experiences.
This serves as a powerful methodology for us to manifest human justice in the international arena, assemble positive forces, and unite with as numerous countries as can be to pursue peaceful development. Chinese foreign relations theory is constructed on Marxist international relations theory and constitutes an essential underpinning of the confidence in socialist theory with Chinese characteristics in the new era. There is no doubt that it should be transmuted into a prominent ingredient of China’s independent knowledge system and that we should keep on persevering in developing this system.
References
Dugin, Aleksander. 2024. “Mass Geopolitical Education Must Be Undertaken.”[In Russian] 24 September 2024. https://izborsk-club.ru/26142.
Engels, Friedrich. (1890) 2001. “Engels to Joseph Bloch in Königsberg, London, 21-22 September, 1890.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 49. Moscow: Progress Publishers, pp. , 33-37.
Haushofer, Karl. 1934. “Atemweite, Lebensraum und Gleichberechtigung auf Erden,” Zeitschrift für Geopolitik 11 (1): 1–14.
Khanna, Parag. 2009. The Second World: The Coming of the New Global Order. [In Chinese] Beijing: Citic Press.
MAO Zedong. (1937) 1965. “On Contradiction.” In Selected Works of Mao Zedong, vol. 1. [In Chinese] Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, pp. 311-347.
Putin, Vladimir. 2008. Putin’s Collected Works (2002-2008).[In Chinese]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
Ratzel, Friedrich. (1901) 2017. “The Laws of the Spatial Growth of States.”In The Structure of Political Geography, edited by Julian Minghi, chapter 4. New York: Routledge.
Sudlin, Sergei (ed.). 2024. Research on the Economic Development of Russia (2022-2023). [In Chinese] Beijing: Contemporary World Press.
XI Jinping. (2018) 2020. The Governance of China, vol. 3. [In Chinese] Beijing: People’s Publishing House.
[1] See https://lenta.ru/news/2021/10/21/konac/ (In Russian).
[2] See https://switzerland.mid.ru/ru/press-centre/press-relizy/o_kontseptsii_vneshney_politiki_rossiyskoy_federatsii_2023 (In Russian).
[3] See http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75521 (In Russian).