16 Geopolitics of War

The geopolitics of war is a multifaceted domain that encompasses the interplay of power, territory, and conflict among nations. Unlike the geopolitics of peace, which emphasizes stability and cooperation, the geopolitics of war focuses on the underlying causes and consequences of armed conflict. This chapter delves into the factors that precipitate war, including geopolitical rivalries, resource scarcity, and the influence of international actors. The analysis draws on contemporary case studies, particularly the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Tigray, to illustrate how geopolitical dynamics shape warfare and its implications for global stability.

The global landscape of governance reveals stark contrasts:

Total Sovereign States: 195
Liberal Democracies: 97 (49%)
Authoritarian Regimes: 59 (30%)
Hybrid Regimes: 39 (20%)
Full Democracies: Only 24 countries (12%) qualify as full democracies, showcasing the precariousness of robust democratic systems.

16.1 Geopolitical Rivalries and Armed Conflict

Geopolitical rivalries are a significant driver of armed conflict, often manifesting in territorial disputes and power struggles. The Russian-Ukrainian war exemplifies how historical grievances and national interests can escalate into full-scale conflict. As noted by Allison, Russia’s military interventions in Ukraine challenge the post-Cold War European state system, revealing the complexities of national identity and territorial integrity in the context of geopolitical competition (Allison, 2014). The conflict has not only regional implications but also broader consequences for international relations, as it has prompted a reevaluation of security strategies among NATO members and other global powers.

Similarly, the war in Tigray highlights the intersection of local and international geopolitical interests. Gebrewahd discusses how the Tigray conflict reflects the geopolitical rivalries between superpowers, particularly the USA, China, and Russia, and how these dynamics influence the actions of regional actors (Gebrewahd, 2024). The involvement of international organizations and the response of key global players underscore the importance of understanding geopolitical contexts when analyzing the causes and trajectories of modern conflicts.

16.2 The Rise of Dictatorships

The resurgence of authoritarianism has been a notable trend in recent years, with populist leaders gaining traction in various countries. Moghaddam highlights that countries such as Brazil, India, the Philippines, Hungary, and Turkey have seen a rise in support for authoritarian strongmen, reflecting a broader global decline in democratic norms (Moghaddam, 2021). This trend is not limited to developing nations; even established democracies are experiencing pressures that threaten their liberal foundations.

As of the most recent data, there are approximately 59 authoritarian regimes worldwide, representing about 30% of the world’s countries. These regimes vary in structure, ranging from military juntas and single-party states to personalist dictatorships. Concentrated in regions such as the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of Asia, these regimes often operate through mechanisms that suppress political dissent and centralize power.

In the Middle East, the political landscape is particularly fluid, with Syria undergoing a notable leadership transition. The aftermath of the Syrian civil war and external geopolitical pressures have created a complex environment where the regime, now under a new leader, seeks to consolidate power amid fragile stability. Early indications suggest a continuation of authoritarian governance, with limited prospects for democratic reforms. The situation in Syria exemplifies the complexities of leadership transitions in authoritarian regimes. Following the civil war, Bashar al-Assad’s regime has solidified its grip on power, with significant backing from Russia and Iran. Al-Fawwaz argues that the reconfiguration of political and economic structures in the region is essential for understanding the persistence of dictatorships like Assad’s, which often suppress citizens’ rights in favor of maintaining control (Al-Fawwaz, 2018). The Syrian case illustrates how external support can bolster authoritarian regimes, complicating efforts toward democratization.

16.3 Pressures on Liberal Democracies

Liberal democracies across Europe and the United States are facing unprecedented challenges.

Liberal democracies, numbering approximately 97 countries, or about 49% of all sovereign states, face increasing internal and external pressures. In Europe, liberal democracies are contending with rising populism, anti-immigration sentiment, and challenges to judicial independence in countries such as Hungary and Poland. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 marked a significant turning point, as it emboldened populist movements and anti-establishment sentiments. The rise of electoral autocracy, where democratic processes are manipulated to maintain authoritarian control, has become a pressing concern (Akinyetun, 2023). Meanwhile, in the United States, the recent re-election of Donald Trump has reinvigorated debates about the resilience of democratic institutions in the face of perceived executive overreach.

This broader trend has been reflected in indices such as the Democracy Index, which reported a decline in the global average democracy score in the past year. Western democracies face challenges such as polarization, voter disillusionment, and the erosion of trust in traditional institutions, exacerbated by economic uncertainty and the impact of global crises. In Europe, countries like Hungary and Poland have witnessed democratic backsliding, with governments undermining judicial independence and media freedom (Moghaddam, 2021).

According to the Freedom in the World Report 2020, the number of countries classified as “free” has been declining, with a notable increase in “partly free” and “not free” classifications (Taysum & Hysa, 2023). This decline is indicative of a broader trend of democratic erosion, where the foundational principles of liberal democracy—such as the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of civil liberties—are increasingly under threat. The erosion of democratic norms poses a significant challenge to global stability, as it weakens the institutions that underpin peace and security.

The global landscape of governance is marked by a stark contrast between the persistence of dictatorships and the pressures faced by liberal democracies. The rise of authoritarian regimes, exemplified by the situation in Syria, highlights the challenges of democratization in the face of external support for autocratic leaders. Meanwhile, the pressures on liberal democracies, particularly in the wake of populist movements and the election of leaders like Donald Trump, underscore the fragility of democratic institutions. As the world grapples with these dynamics, the future of governance remains uncertain, necessitating a concerted effort to uphold democratic values and resist the tide of authoritarianism.

16.4 Resource Scarcity and Environmental Factors

Resource scarcity is another critical factor that can lead to armed conflict. The competition for limited resources, such as water and arable land, often exacerbates tensions, particularly in regions already facing economic and political instability. The environmental conflict theory posits that population growth and environmental degradation can lead to violent conflict over dwindling resources (Masara, 2021). This theory is supported by research indicating that climate change increases the risk of conflict, particularly in vulnerable regions (Koubi et al., 2012). For instance, Koubi et al. demonstrate a clear correlation between climate variability and civil conflict, emphasizing the need for policymakers to consider environmental factors in conflict prevention strategies (Koubi et al., 2012).

The ongoing impacts of climate change, coupled with geopolitical tensions, create a volatile environment where conflicts can easily ignite. As noted by Gebrewahd, the interplay between climate-induced resource scarcity and geopolitical rivalries necessitates a comprehensive understanding of how environmental factors can influence warfare and international relations (Gebrewahd, 2024).

16.5 The Role of International Organizations and Corporations

International organizations and corporations play a crucial role in shaping the geopolitical landscape of war. Their responses to conflicts can either mitigate or exacerbate tensions. For example, the United Nations and other international bodies often intervene in conflicts to promote peace and stability, yet their effectiveness can be hindered by geopolitical rivalries among member states (Gebrewahd, 2024). The Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) provides valuable data that informs conflict prediction models, helping organizations allocate resources effectively in conflict zones (Billon & Duffy, 2018).

Corporations, particularly multinational enterprises, also assess geopolitical risks to safeguard their operations. The analysis of geopolitical risks, as highlighted by Caldara and Iacoviello, shows that heightened geopolitical tensions can lead to economic instability, affecting investment and employment (Caldara & Iacoviello, 2022). Companies must navigate these risks carefully, as conflicts can disrupt supply chains and alter market dynamics, further complicating the geopolitical landscape.

16.6 Conclusion

The geopolitics of war is characterized by a complex interplay of rivalries, resource scarcity, and the influence of international actors. Understanding these dynamics is essential for comprehending the causes of armed conflict and its implications for global stability. As geopolitical tensions continue to rise, particularly in regions like Ukraine and Tigray, the need for effective conflict resolution strategies becomes increasingly urgent. Policymakers must consider the multifaceted nature of warfare, incorporating insights from geopolitical analysis, environmental studies, and international relations to foster a more stable global environment.

16.7 References

Akinyetun, T. (2023). The rise of autocracy in the Sahel of Africa: Insights from resource curse theory. Research in Social Change, 15(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.2478/rsc-2023-0002

Al-Fawwaz, A. (2018). Reconfiguration of Arab and Middle Eastern regions beyond political and economic threats. Journal of Politics and Law, 11(4), 164. https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v11n4p164

Allison, R. (2014). Russian ‘deniable’ intervention in Ukraine: How and why Russia broke the rules. International Affairs, 90(6), 1255–1297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12170

Billon, P., & Duffy, R. (2018). Conflict ecologies: Connecting political ecology and peace and conflict studies. Journal of Political Ecology, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.2458/v25i1.22704

Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2022). Measuring geopolitical risk. American Economic Review, 112(4), 1194–1225. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191823

Gebrewahd, M. (2024). The war on Tigray: Geopolitics and the struggle for self-determination. Hungarian Journal of African Studies / Afrika Tanulmányok, 17(3), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.15170/at.2023.17.3.1

Koubi, V., Bernauer, T., Kalbhenn, A., & Spilker, G. (2012). Climate variability, economic growth, and civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343311427173

Masara, W. (2021). Environment-conflict nexus: The relevance of Thomas Homer-Dixon’s environmental conflict theory in Africa. African Journal of Empirical Research, 2(1–2), 170–175. https://doi.org/10.51867/ajer.v2i2.42

Moghaddam, F. (2021). Peace psychology and the deadly competition between democracy and dictatorship. Peace and Conflict Journal of Peace Psychology, 27(3), 337–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000577

Taysum, A., & Hysa, F. (2023). Typology of epistemologies for democratising knowledge and policy benefits for all mainstreamed by doctoral-study. European Journal of Educational Research, 12(2), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.2.623

# Geopolitics of War The geopolitics of war is a multifaceted domain that encompasses the interplay of power, territory, and conflict among nations. Unlike the geopolitics of peace, which emphasizes stability and cooperation, the geopolitics of war focuses on the underlying causes and consequences of armed conflict. This chapter delves into the factors that precipitate war, including geopolitical rivalries, resource scarcity, and the influence of international actors. The analysis draws on contemporary case studies, particularly the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Tigray, to illustrate how geopolitical dynamics shape warfare and its implications for global stability. The global landscape of governance reveals stark contrasts: - Total Sovereign States: 195 - Liberal Democracies: 97 (49%) - Authoritarian Regimes: 59 (30%) - Hybrid Regimes: 39 (20%) - Full Democracies: Only 24 countries (12%) qualify as full democracies, showcasing the precariousness of robust democratic systems. ## Geopolitical Rivalries and Armed Conflict Geopolitical rivalries are a significant driver of armed conflict, often manifesting in territorial disputes and power struggles. The Russian-Ukrainian war exemplifies how historical grievances and national interests can escalate into full-scale conflict. As noted by Allison, Russia's military interventions in Ukraine challenge the post-Cold War European state system, revealing the complexities of national identity and territorial integrity in the context of geopolitical competition (Allison, 2014). The conflict has not only regional implications but also broader consequences for international relations, as it has prompted a reevaluation of security strategies among NATO members and other global powers. Similarly, the war in Tigray highlights the intersection of local and international geopolitical interests. Gebrewahd discusses how the Tigray conflict reflects the geopolitical rivalries between superpowers, particularly the USA, China, and Russia, and how these dynamics influence the actions of regional actors (Gebrewahd, 2024). The involvement of international organizations and the response of key global players underscore the importance of understanding geopolitical contexts when analyzing the causes and trajectories of modern conflicts. ## The Rise of Dictatorships The resurgence of authoritarianism has been a notable trend in recent years, with populist leaders gaining traction in various countries. Moghaddam highlights that countries such as Brazil, India, the Philippines, Hungary, and Turkey have seen a rise in support for authoritarian strongmen, reflecting a broader global decline in democratic norms (Moghaddam, 2021). This trend is not limited to developing nations; even established democracies are experiencing pressures that threaten their liberal foundations. As of the most recent data, there are approximately 59 authoritarian regimes worldwide, representing about 30% of the world's countries. These regimes vary in structure, ranging from military juntas and single-party states to personalist dictatorships. Concentrated in regions such as the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of Asia, these regimes often operate through mechanisms that suppress political dissent and centralize power. In the Middle East, the political landscape is particularly fluid, with Syria undergoing a notable leadership transition. The aftermath of the Syrian civil war and external geopolitical pressures have created a complex environment where the regime, now under a new leader, seeks to consolidate power amid fragile stability. Early indications suggest a continuation of authoritarian governance, with limited prospects for democratic reforms. The situation in Syria exemplifies the complexities of leadership transitions in authoritarian regimes. Following the civil war, Bashar al-Assad's regime has solidified its grip on power, with significant backing from Russia and Iran. Al-Fawwaz argues that the reconfiguration of political and economic structures in the region is essential for understanding the persistence of dictatorships like Assad's, which often suppress citizens' rights in favor of maintaining control (Al-Fawwaz, 2018). The Syrian case illustrates how external support can bolster authoritarian regimes, complicating efforts toward democratization. ## Pressures on Liberal Democracies Liberal democracies across Europe and the United States are facing unprecedented challenges. Liberal democracies, numbering approximately 97 countries, or about 49% of all sovereign states, face increasing internal and external pressures. In Europe, liberal democracies are contending with rising populism, anti-immigration sentiment, and challenges to judicial independence in countries such as Hungary and Poland. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 marked a significant turning point, as it emboldened populist movements and anti-establishment sentiments. The rise of electoral autocracy, where democratic processes are manipulated to maintain authoritarian control, has become a pressing concern (Akinyetun, 2023). Meanwhile, in the United States, the recent re-election of Donald Trump has reinvigorated debates about the resilience of democratic institutions in the face of perceived executive overreach. This broader trend has been reflected in indices such as the Democracy Index, which reported a decline in the global average democracy score in the past year. Western democracies face challenges such as polarization, voter disillusionment, and the erosion of trust in traditional institutions, exacerbated by economic uncertainty and the impact of global crises. In Europe, countries like Hungary and Poland have witnessed democratic backsliding, with governments undermining judicial independence and media freedom (Moghaddam, 2021). According to the Freedom in the World Report 2020, the number of countries classified as "free" has been declining, with a notable increase in "partly free" and "not free" classifications (Taysum & Hysa, 2023). This decline is indicative of a broader trend of democratic erosion, where the foundational principles of liberal democracy—such as the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of civil liberties—are increasingly under threat. The erosion of democratic norms poses a significant challenge to global stability, as it weakens the institutions that underpin peace and security. The global landscape of governance is marked by a stark contrast between the persistence of dictatorships and the pressures faced by liberal democracies. The rise of authoritarian regimes, exemplified by the situation in Syria, highlights the challenges of democratization in the face of external support for autocratic leaders. Meanwhile, the pressures on liberal democracies, particularly in the wake of populist movements and the election of leaders like Donald Trump, underscore the fragility of democratic institutions. As the world grapples with these dynamics, the future of governance remains uncertain, necessitating a concerted effort to uphold democratic values and resist the tide of authoritarianism. ## Resource Scarcity and Environmental Factors Resource scarcity is another critical factor that can lead to armed conflict. The competition for limited resources, such as water and arable land, often exacerbates tensions, particularly in regions already facing economic and political instability. The environmental conflict theory posits that population growth and environmental degradation can lead to violent conflict over dwindling resources (Masara, 2021). This theory is supported by research indicating that climate change increases the risk of conflict, particularly in vulnerable regions (Koubi et al., 2012). For instance, Koubi et al. demonstrate a clear correlation between climate variability and civil conflict, emphasizing the need for policymakers to consider environmental factors in conflict prevention strategies (Koubi et al., 2012). The ongoing impacts of climate change, coupled with geopolitical tensions, create a volatile environment where conflicts can easily ignite. As noted by Gebrewahd, the interplay between climate-induced resource scarcity and geopolitical rivalries necessitates a comprehensive understanding of how environmental factors can influence warfare and international relations (Gebrewahd, 2024). ## The Role of International Organizations and Corporations International organizations and corporations play a crucial role in shaping the geopolitical landscape of war. Their responses to conflicts can either mitigate or exacerbate tensions. For example, the United Nations and other international bodies often intervene in conflicts to promote peace and stability, yet their effectiveness can be hindered by geopolitical rivalries among member states (Gebrewahd, 2024). The Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) provides valuable data that informs conflict prediction models, helping organizations allocate resources effectively in conflict zones (Billon & Duffy, 2018). Corporations, particularly multinational enterprises, also assess geopolitical risks to safeguard their operations. The analysis of geopolitical risks, as highlighted by Caldara and Iacoviello, shows that heightened geopolitical tensions can lead to economic instability, affecting investment and employment (Caldara & Iacoviello, 2022). Companies must navigate these risks carefully, as conflicts can disrupt supply chains and alter market dynamics, further complicating the geopolitical landscape. ## Conclusion The geopolitics of war is characterized by a complex interplay of rivalries, resource scarcity, and the influence of international actors. Understanding these dynamics is essential for comprehending the causes of armed conflict and its implications for global stability. As geopolitical tensions continue to rise, particularly in regions like Ukraine and Tigray, the need for effective conflict resolution strategies becomes increasingly urgent. Policymakers must consider the multifaceted nature of warfare, incorporating insights from geopolitical analysis, environmental studies, and international relations to foster a more stable global environment. ## References Akinyetun, T. (2023). The rise of autocracy in the Sahel of Africa: Insights from resource curse theory. Research in Social Change, 15(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.2478/rsc-2023-0002 Al-Fawwaz, A. (2018). Reconfiguration of Arab and Middle Eastern regions beyond political and economic threats. Journal of Politics and Law, 11(4), 164. https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v11n4p164 Allison, R. (2014). Russian ‘deniable’ intervention in Ukraine: How and why Russia broke the rules. International Affairs, 90(6), 1255–1297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12170 Billon, P., & Duffy, R. (2018). Conflict ecologies: Connecting political ecology and peace and conflict studies. Journal of Political Ecology, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.2458/v25i1.22704 Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2022). Measuring geopolitical risk. American Economic Review, 112(4), 1194–1225. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191823 Gebrewahd, M. (2024). The war on Tigray: Geopolitics and the struggle for self-determination. Hungarian Journal of African Studies / Afrika Tanulmányok, 17(3), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.15170/at.2023.17.3.1 Koubi, V., Bernauer, T., Kalbhenn, A., & Spilker, G. (2012). Climate variability, economic growth, and civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343311427173 Masara, W. (2021). Environment-conflict nexus: The relevance of Thomas Homer-Dixon's environmental conflict theory in Africa. African Journal of Empirical Research, 2(1–2), 170–175. https://doi.org/10.51867/ajer.v2i2.42 Moghaddam, F. (2021). Peace psychology and the deadly competition between democracy and dictatorship. Peace and Conflict Journal of Peace Psychology, 27(3), 337–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000577 Taysum, A., & Hysa, F. (2023). Typology of epistemologies for democratising knowledge and policy benefits for all mainstreamed by doctoral-study. European Journal of Educational Research, 12(2), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.2.623