These my brand-new reflections on geopolitics present it as a philosophical field, emphasizing the influence of geography on political strategies and the impact of geopolitical actions on collective identities and human conditions. It integrates classical philosophical thoughts on power and State acts, aiming to deepen the understanding of nations’ strategic behaviours and ethical considerations. This reflective approach seeks to enhance insights into global interactions and the shaping of geopolitical landscapes.

The Geo-Philosophy

Part II

The phase of the maintenance of our form of civilization unfolds between two apparently opposite and incompatible moments: synthesis and desynthesis. However, the “expansion” of the system has ultimately led to an irreversible crisis. The “crisis” of the West is not due to the incursion of an allotropic element, but to the simple fact that, through expansion, the political grinds down all that is non-political, the metropolis relentlessly grinds down the provincial and the peripheral, urbanism swallows the countryside, the forest, the mountain…, the philosophical absorbs all that is non-philosophical (literature, art, cinema, television, the dream, madness…)—philosophy even amuses itself by producing its own deconstruction; while History grinds down all that is extra-historical, from peoples without history to the history of that which, not unfolding “in public,” would strictly be without history. Now, this expansion has resulted in what Baudrillard calls “implosion,” that is, the “chemical” suspension of all classic opposition in a solution of reversibility or random aggregation, or anyway, according to laws not reducible to any known reference. Such a suspended state is what I call “desynthesis.”
Desynthesis should be understood not as a sort of reflux, but as a movement of drift, like the expression “galactic drift” in the Big Bang theory. The mutual distancing of nebulae here corresponds to the mutual distancing of State, History, and Philosophy and their internal parts from each other; it involves the disarray of the Western system or, more specifically, the breakdown of the system of legitimation of the Western use of the mind, and thus also the dysfunction of the project that refers to that use.

That there is desynthesis can be inferred indirectly from what we might call the Doppler effect of Western civilization, a sort of “redshift” of the “light” emanating from various formations of the objective spirit in which State, History, and Philosophy are variously intertwined.
The Doppler effect we are discussing consists, for example, of the recording of the decline of the universalistic model of the European nation-state and, more specifically, in the shift of political and legal investments to the local and territorial, such that statehood seems to produce more as a multiplicity of subversive pushes than as a totalization of collective existence in the ethno-political universality of the nation. To biopolitics as the perfection of Western statehood (the subsumption of life as a biological fact under a power that acts with aesthetic nonchalance) is substituted a sort of geopolitics of territorial instances (the dissemination of the political in the folds of the concrete territoriality and domesticity of existence). Thus, philosophy no longer produces itself as a national educational project, but as a sort of concrete morality that articulates local truths and transient facts for the use of restricted communities. To the university philosophy, which untangled universal teachings for a community without particularistic divisions within it, and thus an ethnically, legally, and politically homogeneous community—which guaranteed the universality of education through a system of public degrees and certificates—is juxtaposed something like a thought that speaks without legitimation, without authority, without certifications, and therefore a thought ‘gone wild,’ or better said, ‘uncivilized,’ which moves from a retreat to territorial belonging rather than from an imperial investiture. To hermeneutics as the perfection of the public philosophy of the late twentieth century is substituted a thought of local instances, a geo-philosophy; to the image of the state professor, the meticulous philologist, the pedagogue, the jealous guardian of orthodoxy, and the accumulator of glosses is juxtaposed, precisely in the sense that it slips to the side, to the right, that of the corsair thinker or, better yet, pirate, vampyr, one who sucks the soul (the juice, the sap of a thought) introducing into bodies (his public image) a spirit that does not correspond (Wild textualism)—to the productivity and commensurability of philosophical work, typical moreover of every homogeneous formation, is substituted a sort of heterogeneous dissemination of the thinking function, a shift in the register of thought from accumulation to expenditure, from education to conspiracy, from capital to treasure, from universal power to transitory munificence. On this basis is forming another economy of thought that alongside the global governance of the mind affixes something like a liberalism or an anarchism of its use, to the catholicism of thought (revelation + tradition + magisterium) juxtaposes a mind unaware of the revelativity of philosophy, disacknowledging the magisterium of clerics and exercising a sort of free examination of tradition: Lutheranism of the mind.
(Finally, the same can be said for historicity. This no longer produces itself as the unisignificance of the world and facts. To the homogeneous and transferable spiritual heritage of nations is substituted the experience of discontinuity and rupture, to universal history the incommensurability of the historical experiences of concrete local communities.)

These my brand-new reflections on geopolitics present it as a philosophical field, emphasizing the influence of geography on political strategies and the impact of geopolitical actions on collective identities and human conditions. It integrates classical philosophical thoughts on power and State acts, aiming to deepen the understanding of nations’ strategic behaviours and ethical considerations. This reflective approach seeks to enhance insights into global interactions and the shaping of geopolitical landscapes.

The Geo-Philosophy

Part I

Philosophy no longer makes individuals wiser nor does it impart wisdom; it neither aids in making beneficial life decisions nor does it bring happiness. However, it certainly does not leave everything unchanged—it is not a futile endeavour. This can be demonstrated through indirect reasoning, for instance by examining how political power has repeatedly striven to seize it or control its discourse.
Yet, the issue is more intricate and simultaneously more straightforward than it appears. First, because philosophy is not merely prey to the political; and second, because the relationship among philosophy, politics, and history is highly complex. It is only through the interplay of this complexity, resembling the ever-changing patterns of a kaleidoscope, that we can glean insights into the characteristics of our way of life, our culture, traditionally referred to as the “West.”
It is thus possible to begin with the observation that philosophy is a fundamental and essential aspect of the “Western project.”
The need to define this term (“Western project”) necessitates first clarifying what “project” implies here. If by project we mean looking forward, the foresight of what will be done, and the structured plan of a construction, then it can be defined as the plan that allows us to foresee everything that needs to be done to then tackle a specific construction.
In general, the blueprint upon which our way of life was developed and built includes three constructive orders: the organization of coexistence, the continuity of events, and the certification of beliefs. The West is an ongoing construction whose unfolding is articulated as a combination of these three problem-solving constructs. On the plane of coexistence, the Western project unfolds as a state organization; on that of eventuality and its impermanence, it unfolds as History; and on that of belief and its uncertainty, it unfolds as Philosophy. The State organizes the community, History retains events, Philosophy transforms faith into truth.

One might wonder in what sense philosophy certifies belief, and the answer is that philosophy arises and establishes itself in opposition to myth. The struggle between philosophy and myth is authoritatively attested by Plato. This struggle is primarily a battle for control over the education system (Paideia) and unfolds in three ways: 1. the exclusion of poets, that is, the wise producers of myths, from the Polis; 2. the repositioning of mythical wisdom in a subordinate role to philosophical knowledge; 3. an unequivocal condemnation of the sophist, that is, the practitioner of a private and thus particularistic Paideia, and moreover in exchange for money.
Philosophy firstly rejects the mere faith-based nature of myth (that which is strongly believed is true) and its inability to establish itself as an exclusive sphere, thereby preemptively invalidating the emergence of other myths, and thus of different and conflicting truths. Philosophy counters the particular knowledge of myth and sophistry with the idea of a universal and incontrovertible knowledge. Now, the philosopher’s certainty of possessing absolutely certain knowledge is based on the acquisition of two notions: 1. truth as unveiling (Alétheia); 2. Being as totality (En-pan). By invoking these two notions, philosophy asserts itself as a total, exclusive faith: philosophy is the eternal and ubiquitous knowledge of the unveiled, that is, of that which, remaining unchangeably in the philosopher’s gaze, is always and everywhere true.
The extent to which this conviction is in turn a belief is something that, following the break from Hegelianism, will be categorically highlighted. Philosophy is no more a certain knowledge than myth was, with the difference that this myth, which is philosophy, has found in the coordination with the State and with History the means to suppress, disqualify, or annihilate any different use of the mind.
State, History, and philosophy are not independent magnitudes. Together, they constitute the response to the problems of the incompatibility of coexistence, the impermanence of events, and the uncertainty of belief, whose kaleidoscopic interplay forms the ever-changing, yet always unified, shape of Western civilization. It could be said that each of these magnitudes presupposes and inevitably refers back to the other two, and that none of the three would have the meaning they do outside of their mutual and triadic relationship, nor could they be separated from this relationship without compromising the entire system’s structure, thereby somehow causing its breakdown. This is a system of transparent planes, each bearing a design; their overlapping, in multiple combinations, gives us the complete design of Western Kultur. What allows the reading of the three planes as a civilization project is thus their very transparency. This system of complex overlays could be termed the Western synthesis, namely the union, the joint capacity for promotion, and the mobile connection of State, History, and Philosophy, along with the transparency of each plane relative to the others.
For instance, knowledge that sought certainty outside the constraints imposed by historical existence would be nothing more than the myth against which Plato fought to establish philosophy as the foundation of all public education. Moreover, if there were no centralized and singular control over the education system, if the Paideia presented itself as a multiplicity of conflicting and irreducible proposals, then there would not be a State, i.e., there would not be a single system of publicity and therefore not even a single system of meaning, there would not be that Einsinningkeit, that unisignificance of facts that is the foundation of the Western mind. In its place, we would have something like a plurality of private meanings and disparate images, and thus the possibility, always given, of their irreconcilable conflict; we would have something powerful, tyrannical, and at the same time inert, flaccid, treacherous, something both superstitious and simultaneously dazzling like a foggy lunar night, like a charming creature yet veiled in damp mists, dim, feverish, internally corrupt and contradictory like Madame Chaucaht.
Thus, the West is primarily a State, that is, the opening of a public space measured by Man, whose measure is Man but only insofar as he is philosophically educated—thus: Homo philosophicus and not “man” simply. The West, following the metaphors of the Magic Mountain, is the “clear day,” the “daylight” where things appear in their incontrovertible objectivity, and “cold,” that is, rational, and finally “glassy,” that is, transparent, unambiguous. This public space, rational, objective, and unambiguous is the realm of manifestation of meaningful events. The meaning of such events, for the philosophically educated being, is univocal, that is, universally comprehensible and transmissible. Such events are thus, so to speak, “eternal facts,” which precisely means: transmissible according to a single meaning. For this reason, they are said to belong to History. History is not the space of facts that simply happen and to which “man” simply conforms, but the realm of the happening of “eternal facts,” which are “facts” only for the Homo politico-philosophicus.

The increased prominence of geopolitics is readily observable, as evidenced by the substantial airtime devoted to this subject in recent television broadcasts. This resurgence is predominantly lexical, a development of significant import considering that our cognitive frameworks are shaped by the extent of our lexicon, as substantiated by Heidegger’s profound analyses. Notably, this lexical revival eschews Anglicisms, marking it as an exceptional trend. The question arises: is this surge in interest merely a temporal anomaly or does it signify a fundamental transformation in our cultural paradigm? To engage with this understated debate, it is indeed beneficial to contemplate the structural demands of our society that may be driving the rejuvenation of geopolitical discourse.
History was scarcely proclaimed to have ended when declarations of its resurgence began to surface, highlighted by events in 2001, 2003, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2020, and 2022, with terrorism, China, Putin, Israel, and intermittently Covid-19 being identified as central figures. These assertions aim to awaken Italy and Europe from the soporific embrace of postmodernity, yet they falter in pinpointing a definitive event that reawakens our historical consciousness. No event conveniently lends itself to a singular interpretation, and it is a fallacy of realism to assume a transparent epistemological clarity of historical occurrences. The real tragedy is our diminished capacity to ascribe historical and strategic significance to events, indicative of an atrophied historical sensibility. Cultural issues of posture cannot be resolved with expedient solutions, yet a gradual disintegration of the myth of post-history might be emerging. The concept of “longue durée,” largely overlooked by those preoccupied with the immediate, who confuse data for outcomes, could potentially disrupt our complacency.
We will not “return” to history; rather, we will come to recognize that we are still enveloped within it. This acknowledgment is fundamentally a cultural endeavour, wherein the future relevance and viability of geopolitics become pertinent. As a unique instance, and more crucially, as an indication of cultural reform rather than a revolution, this recognition will not be without discomfort. Moving beyond the simplistic reductions promoted by a certain brand of populist empiricism that champions fact-checking as a cure-all and views various disciplines as mere collections of data, we must accept that it is the modes of thought and the theoretical assumptions that orient our focus and interpretation of reality that constitute the spiritual core of a civilization. Thomas Kuhn might describe this as a shift in “paradigms.” The crucial question then becomes: where will necessary changes concentrate, and which cultural forms are currently impeding the development of geopolitics?
Understanding the methodology of prevailing thought, which we term “epochal thought,” involves outlining the self-concept it engenders. An epistemological reform, deemed essential for the advancement of geopolitics and as a precondition for it, must start with a comprehensive reassessment of the self-representation that underlies and influences our historical narrative. Every philosophy of history, and every historiographical philosophy, features a protagonist. In our case, this role is assumed by the “prehistoric individual” (distinct from “prehistorical”). This concept, vigorously discussed in various texts including the fifth chapter of the pamphlet “What is the Third Estate?” by abbé Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, occupies a central position in much of modern political philosophy. The prehistoric individual is described as pre-collective, pre-ideological, and sometimes pre-linguistic, yet almost never pre-economic. “Prehistoric” might be the most apt description, as this idea stems from the philosophical tradition of conjectural history, predominantly Enlightenment in nature. This tradition, while indirectly critiquing gaps in historiography, primarily explores the potential to identify the “nature” of humans, purportedly external to history. On one hand, this surpasses historiography for situational reasons; on the other, it subtly undermines it by replacing it with a methodology believed to more accurately address the question of human nature. This approach, deeply rooted in ancient Greek philosophy, aimed to remove the mystifying contingencies from the contemplation of a truer reality. The contemporary use of this age-old practice in modern political philosophy has led to the “accidentalization” of history. Much of the current philosophical and political discourse is essentially a commentary on the notion of the “end of history,” which is often misconceived as an event rather than a concept. Indeed, the end of history is perpetually imminent, given our prehistoric or, more precisely, ahistorical anthropological philosophy, which is inherently monistic. We routinely dismiss the qualitative distinctions that define history, which are its essence and dynamic force, as mere contingencies. It could be provocatively argued that modernity has left us with an anti-philosophy of history. The legacy of a de-objectified humanity, never the creator of its own nature, remains ensnared in the ceaseless stasis of its own inertia—a shadow more tangible than reality itself, blind to the distinctions crafted by human agency.

These my brand-new reflections on geopolitics present it as a philosophical field, emphasizing the influence of geography on political strategies and the impact of geopolitical actions on collective identities and human conditions. It integrates classical philosophical thoughts on power and State acts, aiming to deepen the understanding of nations’ strategic behaviours and ethical considerations. This reflective approach seeks to enhance insights into global interactions and the shaping of geopolitical landscapes.

Introduction to Geopolitics

A Philosophical Reflection

Geopolitics, a term that evokes the image of global chessboards on which nations move and interact, represents a field of study that transcends mere territorial or political analysis. At its deepest core, it is a philosophical reflection on the nature of power, identity, and collective existence within the global context. This introduction aims to explore the philosophical dimensions inherent in geopolitics, prompting a more nuanced and reflective understanding of the events and strategies that shape our world.
Geopolitics is a multifaceted discipline that intertwines the fixed reality of geography with the dynamic ambitions of global politics, painting a broad canvas that illuminates the strategic manoeuvres nations deploy as they navigate power, influence, and survival on the world stage. This discipline not only considers how physical spaces—mountains, rivers, seas, and natural resources—dictate political possibilities and limitations but also how these geographical factors are leveraged in the quest for geopolitical dominance.
At the heart of philosophical reflection on geopolitics lies the question of power: what is power, who holds it, and how is it exercised on a global scale? Power, in this context, is understood not only in terms of military or economic capability but also as cultural, ideological, and informational power. Thus, geopolitics is configured as the study of power dynamics in an interconnected world, where the actions of one nation can influence, directly or indirectly, the lives of individuals on the other side of the globe.
Another fundamental aspect is identity. Nations, like people, possess complex and multifaceted identities, shaped by history, culture, and relationships with others. These identities play a crucial role in international politics, as they influence perceptions, national interests, and actions on the world stage. Geopolitics thus invites us to consider how collective identities are formed, clash, and transform over time, offering a lens through which to examine the conflicts, alliances, and negotiations that characterize international relations.
Finally, geopolitics challenges us to reflect on human collective existence in an era of globalization. In an increasingly interconnected world, issues of sovereignty, autonomy, and interdependence become increasingly complex and nuanced. Philosophical geopolitics invites us to explore these tensions, asking fundamental questions about the nature of the global order, international justice and human rights, and how we can build a shared future that respects diversity and promotes peace.
The philosophical exploration of geopolitics invites us to ponder deeper existential and ethical questions concerning power, territory, and human intent, drawing from the rich intellectual traditions of several key philosophers.

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes posits that human life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” a state of perpetual conflict that mirrors the relentless competition seen in international relations. His notion that the fear of violent death necessitates the establishment of a powerful sovereign can be analogized to the ways States seek security and power in an anarchic international system.
John Locke is known for his thoughts on government, property, and the social contract. His philosophies are essential for understanding the legitimacy of State power and its roots in the management and ownership of land. Locke’s theories directly relate to how nations justify their geopolitical strategies and claims, emphasizing the importance of consent and rightful authority in the stewardship of resources.
Immanuel Kant proposed that geographical boundaries and the size of a political body affect the governance structure and its representation of the people. His views in Perpetual Peace suggest a subtle acknowledgment of geopolitical constraints and opportunities, articulating a framework where peace can be systematically envisioned and pursued through international cooperation and shared norms.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of the “will to power” underscores a fundamental drive in human behaviour that extends to the behaviour of States. Nietzsche’s ideas illuminate the underlying motivations for geopolitical actions, where nations are seen as entities in constant struggle for dominance or survival, driven by a deep-seated will to assert and expand their influence.
The integration of these philosophical perspectives offers a deeper understanding of the strategic behaviours exhibited on the global stage. Whether it’s in the distribution of critical resources, the strategic placement of military bases, or the formation of powerful alliances, the philosophical underpinnings of geopolitics highlight the inherent conflicts and negotiations that define international relations.
By considering these philosophical views, we gain insights into the enduring nature of power struggles, the ethical dimensions of territorial disputes, and the continuous impact of geographical realities on political decisions. These perspectives not only enrich our understanding of current geopolitical dynamics but also help us foresee how shifts in power and geography might shape the future global order.
This broader, more nuanced approach to geopolitics, enriched with philosophical inquiry, encourages a more comprehensive reflection on the reasons nations act as they do and the possible paths towards cooperation or conflict. It challenges us to critically assess the driving forces behind geopolitical strategies and to contemplate the long-term impacts of these actions on global peace and stability.
In conclusion, approaching geopolitics from a philosophical perspective allows us to go beyond superficial analysis of global events, prompting us to question the very bases of our coexistence on the planet. It challenges us to think critically about power structures, identity, and interdependence, thus providing the tools to better understand and, perhaps, positively influence the complex dynamics that shape our world.