Geopolitics and risk maps

[i][b]causal chain from geography → trade/resources → economic activity → political/military action.[/b][/i] [b]Geopolitics and Risk Maps[/b] Basically, we are making maps that are not always, or only very weakly, based on the geopolitical reality of the present day or on the geopolitical reality of the historical period we are trying to represnt. Many of the maps we make, or have already made, are missing this geopolitical reality. Even the classic Risk map is almost completely detached from it. And I think geopolitics is actually one of the reasons why wars, crises, confrontations, and rivalries happen in particular places. ([i]And risk is actually a game where the geography is supposed to influence your political action[/i]!) First of all, when I use the term geopolitics, I mean the physical geography itself: the course of rivers, climatic conditions, mountains, the location and course of mountain passes, weather conditions, coastlines, waterways, and so on. But I also mean the way in which this geography influences the social, economic, political, and military behavior of the people living within this geography. In other words, I use[b] geopolitics to describe the way geography influences social behavior,[/b] the distribution of resources in physical space, the distribution of resources between social entities, and the competition and struggle for resources between these social entities. This includes the way [b]geography influences social interaction[/b] between individual people and between larger groups such as kingdoms, tribes, states, or other political entities. Geography influences the formation and development of trade networks, the formation and development of political entities, and the distribution of resources within and between political entities. It also influences political behavior: how resources are distributed within a political entity or between different political entities, how power is distributed, and how power asymmetries between political entities develop. So, basically, I use the term [b]geopolitics here to describe this entire set of interactions between geography on the one hand and social, political, and economic behavior on the other hand.[/b] [b]Geography basically influences how people move through space, when they move, how they move, and how frequently they move.[/b] It also influences the size of human populations: basically, how many people a given territory can feed and sustain, and how people are distributed across a country or territory simply because of the physical characteristics of that territory. Territory and geography also influence how exactly people trade with each other — for example, through waterways, rivers, mountain passes, and other natural routes. Geography also influences the political borders of entities such as empires, countries, kingdoms, or whatever other political entities we want to call them. [b]Contemporary examples[/b] For example, some contemporary examples of geopolitics and the way it influences conflicts are the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is important because a large amount of the oil and gas coming out of the Persian Gulf is shipped through it to the rest of the world. Another example is the Strait of Malacca and the global network of sea routes. Some of these routes are less important, while others are extremely important. They influence trade between states and therefore influence the economic well-being of states. And because they influence economic well-being, they then influence political action and, in a second step, military action. For example: In which countries do I want to achieve regime change? In which countries do I want to build some kind of fifth column? In which countries, or on which islands, do I want to establish military bases? Where do I want to conclude weapons agreements, arms deals, or alliances? Where do I want to build roads? Think about things such as the Belt and Road Initiative, the “String of Pearls,” NATO, the Five Eyes initiative, the Australian “NATO,” OPEC cartels, etc.~All of these things are connected in some way to geography, economic relationships, strategic routes, resources, markets, and the political and military power needed to secure them. Another example is the Northern Sea Route along the Russian northern coast, which could be seen as a kind of smaller alternative to the Strait of Malacca. Russia is heavily developing this route, and I believe that a few weeks ago there was already a first larger shipment of goods from China using this route. Russia is trying to develop this passage as a new shipping route. It hopes to profit from transit fees and from providing the necessary infrastructure, such as ports, logistics facilities, and icebreaker ships. China, on the other hand, is trying to diversify its trade routes so that it becomes less dependent on the Strait of Malacca and has an alternative route available. So here we have an example of how geography, technological development, and economic activity influence political and military action, which in turn influences the other factors again. We have a very closely interconnected system here. And I think it would be good if new Risk maps, or Risk maps in general, represented these geopolitical realities. [i]I will explain later how exactly I imagine this working.[/i] [b]Pipelines and energy routes[/b] Another example is pipelines. Pipelines are basically the arteries, or energy arteries, of the modern world. Modern industrialized society is ultimately built on oil and gas. Pipelines are a kind of fixed infrastructure for transporting these resources. The same applies to the infrastructure required for transporting liquefied natural gas (LNG), including the processing infrastructure and ports that are capable of receiving, handling, processing, and distributing LNG. All of this can also be seen as a kind of network of arteries, similar to pipelines. Basically, these are also fixed trade routes — fixed routes for transporting a particular commodity, in this case energy, and more specifically oil and gas. This is similar to other major trade routes. The Strait of Malacca, for example, is a trade route for many different kinds of goods, whereas pipelines and LNG routes are basically trade routes for energy. And political and military actions of states are built around these routes. The goal is to secure and stabilize their own routes, their own flows of goods, and their own access to markets; to protect them from competitors; and to create alternatives so that they are as little dependent as possible on a single route, source, supplier, or infrastructure network. For example, one country tries to sell its goods in another country and make a profit from it. It tries to secure as large a share of the European energy market as possible. Another country, as a competitor, naturally tries to weaken or cut this connection, tries to secure market shares of the European energy market for itself, tries to establish a monopoly, or at least increase its own market share, and so on. The conflicts in Syria, as well as the conflict between Israel and Iran, can also be viewed against this background. There was, I believe, an earlier attempt by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to build some kind of pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe as an alternative route. The idea was to position themselves as an alternative supplier to Russia on the European energy market. So there would have been both an alternative supplier and an alternative route: a route away from all these sea connections and away from the Strait of Hormuz, which makes Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states vulnerable to Iranian attacks. This was therefore also an attempt to create alternatives: to position themselves as an alternative energy supplier and to create an alternative trade route — or, in other words, an alternative distribution route. This can partly explain the war in Syria, why Russia, Iran, and other actors took one side or the other, and also, to some extent, the war in Libya. So many wars and conflicts of the present day can be viewed through this geopolitical lens and can, at least partly, be explained through it. How do goods move? How do the flows of goods move? Who sells what? Who has what share of which market? Who makes their money where and from what? From trade? Trade in what? What kind of access do they have to which markets? Which routes do they depend on? Which alternatives do they have? And so on. [b]All of this — the economy, the movement of goods, access to markets, the movement and flow of goods, and the entire logistical infrastructure that makes these flows and transportation possible — is connected.[/b] [b]Basically, economic activity and the way people make money are to a large extent influenced and determined by geography [/b]and by the level of technological development. And this is one possible way of explaining geopolitical conflicts in the present day.

[b]Geography and state-building in the past[/b] The same way of thinking can also be applied to conflicts or events in a much broader historical sense. Not only conflicts, but also processes such as state-building and the formation of political entities in the past can be viewed through this lens. For example: the formation of Rus, the formation of England, and Viking economic and political activity more generally. All of these political and social developments can also be examined through the lens of geography and geopolitics. The driver of many of these developments was, of course, geography: river courses, coastlines, sea routes, and trade, including the slave trade. The Scandinavians controlled rivers and coastlines. At first, they may have started with raids, perhaps weakening existing central powers and acquiring goods, including slaves. Then, once these existing political centers had been weakened, they could attempt to establish themselves as new centers of power, building their own principalities, kingdoms, and political spheres of influence. So first we have geography: river courses, navigable rivers, sea routes, coastlines, river mouths, and the places that could be reached relatively easily with the technology of the time. Then we have the trade goods. In the case of the Vikings, slaves were obviously an important commodity. The Vikings, I believe, were to a large extent slave traders. They traded, for example, Irish slaves, Slavic slaves, and other enslaved people. Basically, they formed their principalities and political spheres of influence along the places where goods were transferred: large cities with major trading centers, where goods were bought, sold, and resold. And where these trading and transfer centers for slaves and other goods were located depended heavily on geography: river courses, river mouths, coastlines, navigable waterways, and what could be reached relatively easily with the technology of the time, especially the ships they possessed. And this later [b]favored the development of political structures such as principalities[/b] and kingdoms. So, as the first foundation, we have geography: rivers → navigable rivers → less navigable rivers → coastlines → sea routes → natural points of access and movement. Then we have a second layer: some kind of trade good — slaves, furs, honey, weapons, gold, or whatever else. Where these goods are located also depends on geography. Where are the good places for settlements? Which territories can support the largest populations? Which territories can produce enough food and resources to sustain large concentrations of people? [b]Geography determines which routes I can use to obtain these goods and transport them somewhere else to sell them.[/b] [b]Or which routes are the most cost-effective![/b]. Geography also determines where I can build well-defended facilities, fortresses, or cities with trading centers. So this entire process of social action can be broken down into several interconnected forms of action: political action — such as the formation of states and political entities; military action — such as conflicts and wars; economic action — what is being sold, where it is being sold, where things are transported from, where they are transported to, and the entire logistics behind it. All of this can be analyzed against the background of geography. Of course, geography does not explain everything. But it explains a lot. I think this is also one of the established approaches for explaining why medieval Rus developed where it did: along the trade routes and river trade routes of the Dnieper and Volga, and why certain centers developed in particular locations. It also helps explain why Scandinavians traveled to England and Ireland. So the same analytical lens that can be used to explain the past can also be used to explain the present. [b]Putting all of this into the maps[/b] And this is where my idea comes in. I would like to make all of these things more visible on the maps: trade routes trading centers, places that were raided in order to acquire goods, and the places where these goods were later sold or redistributed. We do not really have maps that represent these geopolitical realities in sufficient detail. For example: Pipeline connections. How much LNG or crude oil does a particular pipeline transport? Is it an LNG route or an oil pipeline? What type of oil can a particular processing facility or refinery process? There are different types of crude oil: sweet, sour, heavy, light, and there are different refineries with different technological capabilities that can process different types of crude oil. Then there are ports with the appropriate infrastructure that are suitable for receiving this oil, LNG, or whatever other commodity, processing it further, storing it, and distributing it onward. There are also straits through which huge amounts of trade pass. There are mountain ranges that protect one city or region from another, or that determine which cities and regions are easier or harder to reach. All of these things matter. So my idea would be to build maps in the future that represent these geopolitical realities much more strongly. Instead of having a map that merely says: „Here is a country. Here is another country. Here is a border.“ I would like the map to show the underlying systems that actually make these political entities function: Where do people move? Where do goods move? Where are resources located? Where are they extracted? Where are they processed? Where are they traded? Which routes connect them? Which routes can be blocked? Which routes can be replaced? Which ports, straits, rivers, mountains, pipelines, roads, railways, and sea routes are strategically important? Which political entities depend on which resources and routes? In other words, I would like Risk maps to represent not only the political geography of a particular period, but also the economic, logistical, military, and geographic structures underlying that political geography. I have had a few ideas about this in the past. Maybe I can show them later.

some examples with maritime and land trade routes. [url=]https://imgur.com/a/wOgTBmr [/url] i will someday make a beta version of a map based on my stated ideas to give u a more nuanced example.