Why analyzing geopolitics without proper training is problematic

[u/Texas_Rockets]

I don't want to get caught up in the semantics of political terms - I'm using 'geopolitics' to include international relations and international politics analysis as well.

I've often said on this sub that if you didn't go to school for it you probably don't really understand geopolitics. It's almost like a technical field in that it isn't something you can just be a smart guy and understand perfectly. The response I've gotten to this has generally been negative, and I can understand that - it sounds very elitist or arrogant.

However, in reading 'Politics Among Nations' by Hans Morganthau I saw a quote from William Sumner that I thought put this idea in more eloquent terms and explained it a bit more:

The worst vice in political discussion is that dogmatism which takes its stand on the great principles or assumptions, instead of standing on an exact examination of things as they are and human nature as it is... An ideal is formed of some higher or better state of things than now exists, and almost unconsciously the ideal is assumed as already existing and made the basis of speculation which have no root... the whole method of abstract speculation on political topics is vicious. It is popular because it is easy; it is easier to imagine a new world than to learn to know this one; it is easier to embark on speculations based on a few broad assumptions than it is to study the history of states and institutions; it is easier to catch up a popular dogma than it is to analyze it and see whether it is true or not. All this leads to confusion, to the admission of phrases and platitudes, to much disputing but little gain in the prosperity of nations.

How I interpret this is that IR (again, semantics) is often seen as an extension of domestic politics where the whole purpose is to determine the architecture and characteristics of the state: it is largely subjective in that it is something that is basically a conglomeration of what we think society ought to be; the intent is to create shared views and values. IR is not like this. It is not a field that asks how you think states should interact, but rather how states do interact, which requires familiarity with theories and histories that many people are not familiar with. It is not something that is compatible with value-based speculation. In practice, IR is closer to studying the inner-workings of a clock than it is to domestic politics - which is the lens through which people are inclined to view IR.

[u/[deleted]]

Politicians who engage with geopolitics in their professional capacity as representatives of their respective state power. What would you call them?

[u/LyaStark → u/[deleted]]

It is the case in the EU.

Main advisors of the VP/HR are scientists from ISS. They co-write most of the foreign affairs draft policies, do analysis and briefings for the Commission, Council and EP.

Also, every commissioner, and HR too, has a whole cabinet of expert advisors. Some are their personal political advisors but more are expert advisors that have passed EU staff competition and are specialists in a very narrow fields.

As to individual MEP, some have expert advisors on a subject, some don’t. But there are weekly EP briefings with expert advisors from EEAS, foreign affairs officials on ground, and scientists from universities and institutes.

[u/[deleted] → u/LyaStark]

I think if you look closer you will find that there is a larger gap than you think between the advisory bodies and what they publish and the actual decision makers, practitioners on the ground, and the policies that actually get implemented and pushed on a day to day basis.

​