For respective years now we can observe the increasing popularity of the technological field known as geopolitics in Poland. A fewer years ago, it was only curious in niche environments, but in the meantime it became an highly fashionable concept, which programmed the minds of many Poles to think with categories of building empires or large-space organizations. Interestingly, until recently, the concepts of geopolitics as fires were avoided by German elites due to the fact that they feared accusations that they were pursuing old imperial goals. Geopolitics was a pseudo-scientific justification for the request for specified a policy. In fresh months, however, German politicians have started to talk straight about the request to build Europe as a "geopolitical actor". Thus the erstwhile German dreams of creating their own empire from Europe revived. In the text, we will look at the unions of German imperialism and geopolitics, as well as ask whether the German dream of the empire is successful to yet come true.
Geopolitics as the basis of German imperialism
The creator of German geopolitics is Friedrich Ratzl1who saw nations and states as surviving organisms that are subject to the same rules of operation as animal species. He felt that the essence of an evolutionary conflict for existence was to search to grow his territory (Raum). This argument besides extended to human communities. He was the 1 who formulated the law of increasing space, according to which having a large space is simply a fundamental component of the nation's development2. He besides proclaimed that each country should strive to accomplish the natural limits to be the Rhine, Danube and Vistula, along with their basins.
The very concept of geopolitics was introduced by Ratzla Rudolf Kjellén3. It was the Swede who mostly wrote or translated his works on geopolitics into German. The key claim of geopolitics was to recognise the state as an organism which had to grow to become a “potent”4. He felt that the state was driven, and geopolitics was to indicate ways to fulfill the wishes of the state5. He felt that countries should search to make autaric empires economically, i.e. having the capacity to be under conditions of freezing global exchange.
The concept and thought of geopolitics became the subject of large interest in Germany during planet War I. This concept was peculiarly susceptible among historians and lawyers from Leopold von Ranke's school, who believed, faithful to the doctrine of Frederick the Great, that the state's goal was to expand. For example, Erich Marcks, a typical of Rankie's school, advocated “the expansion of the planet leadership of Germany and the mobilisation of economical and political forces to occupy a planet place, fulfilling a planet mission inside the old continent in which we are and will remain. This is besides a strong basis for going out of the oceans. This must be a natural consequence of the force as a consequence of the European battle. We request a colonial empire, besides outside, in the world”6.
After planet War I, geopolitics became an highly popular way of reasoning in Germany. This was besides linked to the disappointment of the result of the war, erstwhile German Lebensraum, captured in the east, was divided into smaller states. According to German geopolitics investigator Anna Wolff-Powęska: "The geopolitical revolution against the Treaty of Versailles resulted in the selection of institutions, organisations and geopolitical journals whose main intent was to advance the thought of a large space and the fight for the revision of the Treaty"7. In 1924, among others, a magazine “Zeitschrift für Geopolitik” was created, whose longtime publisher was Karl Haushofer. After Hitler came to power, geopolitics flourished. For example, in 1933 the memorial was announced Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Geopolitik, prepared in agreement with the Office of abroad Affairs at the NSDAP, which included a list of tasks to implement the main presumption that "the German man of our time should think geopolitically"8.
Without knowing what German geopolitics was, it is impossible to realize at all the objectives of the 3rd Reich, which in a clear and open way sought to build a pan-European empire under its leadership. With the war lost, Germany had to take up the banners of geopolitics, as their primary goal was to rebuild the lost position through faithful cooperation with the victorious powers that divided Europe among themselves. Thus, for many decades the concept of geopolitics disappeared from the mouth of German elites.
Back to Geopolitics
Suddenly, in the speech, which on 27 November 2019 as an elect candidate in the European Parliament was given by Ursula von der Leyen, the magical concept of "a geopolitical commission" fell (Geopolitical Commission). Suddenly, the concept of geopolitics came back to favors, in the mouth of the future president of the European Commission. In her speech, von der Leyen stressed that the planet supposedly needs European leadership and that is why Europe must become a "responsible power": "States from East to West, from South to North, request Europe to become a real partner. We can be creators of a better global order. This is the calling of Europe and this is what European citizens want"9. In her speech, she stressed that by 2050 Europe would be the world's first climate-neutral continent, and would besides be the leading power in digital technologies and economics, which best balances marketplace forces and the social agenda. He will so become a leader in addressing issues of global importance.
In this speech, German politicians broke the taboo in the form of non-use by German politicians of the notion of geopolitics, which unambiguously associated for decades with the agenda of the conquests of the 3rd Reich. As the memory of the close links between German geopolitics and imperialism in Germany and Europe itself has already faded, the president has dared to start utilizing this concept. She besides spoke about the “Geopolitic Commission” in another speeches10.
On the another hand, German politicians have already started speaking loudly and openly about the European Union as a "geopolitical actor" from almost the first day of the war in Ukraine (24.02.2022). On 27 February 2022 German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced in a peculiar message a change to German policy, which he covered with the slogan Zeitenwende11. The word means a breakthrough, the end of an era, and the beginning of a fresh one. Germany besides rapidly started utilizing the situation to request closer integration between EU associate States. The alleged Russian threat was to require the Union to unite.
For example, Olaf Scholz in an article published on July 17, 2022 entitled "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" (FAZ) The EU must become a geopolitical actor (Die EU must zu ein geopolitischen Akteur werden) explicitly called for the Union to become an autonomous subject of planet politics, its geopolitical actor. Of course, the condition would should be consistency and unity: “We must keep and deepen them. For me, this means: no more selfish blockades of European decisions by individual associate States. No more self-inflicted actions that harm Europe as a whole. We just can't afford national veto anymore, for example in abroad policy if we want to proceed to be heard in a planet of rival large powers"12. Instead, Scholz gave Germany a peculiar work for the future of a united Europe: “This can be done if Germany takes work for Europe and the planet in these hard times. Leadership can only mean: combine, and so in both meanings of the word. By working together with others and avoiding acting on their own. Connecting the East and the West, North and South in Europe, as a country in the mediate of Europe, as a country lying on both sides of an iron curtain"13. The decision to abolish veto in the European Council has already become an authoritative guideline for German policy.
It is worth recalling that in an interview given “Rzeczpospolita” last February, the then German ambassador in Poland Arndt Freytag von Loringhoven had already talked about his ability to imagine that the Bundeswehr would be stationed in Poland14. It is worth noting that in the meantime, with the deployment in Poland of the German Patriot system, this has already become a fact...15
In principle, German politicians believe that Russia's invasion of Ukraine means the definitive end of the geostrategic system, which has prevailed since the end of planet War II. The dominance of the United States of North America in the planet ends, as evidenced by the very fact of the Russian invasion, which proves that the erstwhile hegemon has lost his strength to control the remaining actors. According to German strategists, a fresh global geopolitical strategy is being created, in which respective centres of power will play a leading function (Machtzentren) around which another countries will be organised. The European Union must besides become specified a centre, which should so make its strategical autonomy. Among another things, critical goods and infrastructure should be produced in Europe. The full current German policy is so aimed at transforming Europe into a large-scale empire, centrally managed on defence issues, foreign, economical and financial policies.
Geopolitics and German Imperialism
Geopolitics as imperial doctrine began to make in the late 19th century, so during a period that Eric Hobsbawm called “the age of the empire”16. It was then that different geopolitical concepts began to appear, claiming that the planet would be divided by respective large empires. In our opinion, German politicians, including Olaf Scholz and Ursula von der Leyen, are mentally stuck in the planet of the late 19th century... The basic presumption of geopolitics is that the planet will be divided into respective imperial large spaces or economical blocks. This resulted in a belief that the German elites inactive share present that Germany would be able to win the rivalry with the Russian, English and American empire, and now primarily Chinese, only if they themselves had their own imperial space (Weltreichstheorie).
The German power was to be based on the following pillars: overseas colonies, colonization of Central and east Europe and submission to Western Europe. However, German colonial policy proved to be a failure, and German planners focused on continental Europe. Initially, attention focused on Central and east Europe (Mitteleuropa) due to the fact that it was considered to be a natural area of German dominance. In time the eyes of the Germans besides fell on Western European countries. In general, Germany shared Paul de Lagard’s views: “Peace in Europe will prevail erstwhile Germany reaches from Ems to the mouth of the Danube, from the Sound to Trieste, from Metz to Bug, as the united German forces will defeat France and Russia. due to the fact that the full planet wants peace, it must accept Germany within specified limits”17. Both planet War I and planet War II were attempts to implement this programme – colonize Central and east Europe and subjugate Western Europe so that the German people could have a worthy place under the sun.18.
Moreover, Germany attributed itself to the mission of defending Europe against the temptations of abroad powers – Russia, England, the USA and China. They were to reorganise Europe and thus pool its resources so that it would allegedly have a chance to meet the competition of abroad powers19. This is how different arguments should be considered for the creation of a European large-scale economy (Großraumwirtschaft). German geopoliticians like mantra repeated that the time of national states was over, and the future of the planet supposedly belongs to fresh political formations in the form of alleged large spaces (Großraumdenken). The creation of a common European economical space was so expected to be in the interests of all European countries, which themselves, acting alone, were to be an easy prey to non-European powers. This, of course, was accompanied by the motive for German vocation to be a European leader, i.e. to lead all European countries and peoples in the process of building specified a European large-scale economy.
After 1945, for apparent reasons, Germany had to change its strategy of action, and the European integration was intended to accomplish these objectives. erstwhile we look at what the efforts of German politicians are presently focusing on, it is hard not to announcement that de facto It is about achieving the goals of planet War I. The Federalisation of the European Union, including in peculiar the common foreign, defence, economical and financial policy, would mean the creation of a European empire under German leadership, which both planet wars served. Moreover, German politicians are talking about extending the EU to Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, which would mean extending German influences to the Caucasus. The same is intended to extend the EU to include another Balkan countries. The condition of success and implementation of this plan is to weaken Russia so that it is forced to cooperate with Germany on German terms. Thus, the German influence centres, contrary to what is believed to be "heating the atmosphere", are in their interest to weaken Russia through the prolonged war in Ukraine. And the tremendous aid that Ukraine is providing to the United States or Poland is only weakening Germany's rivals and expanding the chance of this country to win in its plan to build its own European empire.
It is worth recalling that the German strategical goals were accurately described by Roman Dmowski in his celebrated work Germany, Russia and Poland20. Thus, despite the fact that this work appeared more than 100 years ago, it did not lose any relevance at the level of identifying German targets.
What are empires?
In the text entitled Country (national) a empire: 2 principles of global political governance from the point of view of political philosophy21 We have shown that the empire is more than a large country. Countries and empires are guided by a completely different logic, so they are just 2 different models of political order (Ordnung). The fundamental discrimination between these 2 distinct logics of action is based on the following criterion: treating another political actors as fundamentally equal or treating others as objects of conquest or "civilisation". This is not about Realpolitik issues – on this level they can always do more – but about fundamental assumptions concerning legitimacy of their own actions: whether they mention to the rule of the multiplicity of sovereign entities or, on the contrary, specified a multiplicity as an obstacle to real political governance. While the states are so incorporated into a certain arrangement which is jointly created by them and to which no state has exclusivity, the empire is, on the another hand, an exclusive creator and guarantor of a certain arrangement which totally depends on it. The Empire is recognized as a defender of order, which is the basis of an imperial mission – its fall means full chaos22.
States are besides characterised by the desire to set clear borders, while in the case of empires, clear borders are an exception. First of all, their nature is different: the boundaries of empires do not separate any politically equivalent individuals, are semi-permeable and separate areas of varying degrees of dependence from the political center23. In the case of imperial boundaries, we can talk about asymmetry. Those who are outside are not treated as equals. The Empire assigns itself a mission of "civilizing" – residents of abroad areas are barbarians who are fundamentally not equal to the inhabitants of the "civilized" world.
It is besides worth noting that, in the case of empires, there are differences in the issue of population integration from the centre to the periphery, which is shown by the limitations on the rights of the population and thus the anticipation of influencing the centre. The empire is besides characterised by fundamentally multiethnicity24.
It is besides an highly crucial issue that empires legitimize through their imperial mission. This must be a historical task, having a cosmological and eschatological dimension. From the point of view of the logic of the functioning of the empire, the mission is needed for the programming of the elites to submit to it, due to the fact that otherwise the empire will be entangled in peculiar conflicts, which could lead to its collapse. The Imperial Mission so serves to guarantee that individual actors prosecute long-term imperial interests25. Above all, however, through the mission, the autolegitimization of the empire transforms into autosacralization26.
From this point of view, we can even consider geopolitics as the ideology needed to legitimise the construction of empires. Geopolitics is intended to supply arguments for the alleged necessity of eliminating (national) states and replacing them by imperial creations – world, European or Euro-Asian empires. Geopolitics is so closely linked to an imperial mission to be justified by allegedly technological arguments.
If we apply the above to the European Union, we will undoubtedly see that it is simply a work that functions according to imperial logic. We have a mission in the form of defending the alleged European values and defending Europe by abroad competition. Moreover, according to Ursula von der Leyen, “a united Europe” is intended to set standards of conduct for all mankind. The EU's borders are not definitively established, as can be seen even after the possible for further expansion of this organisation. There is no uncertainty that the European centre mainly in the form of Germany and France has an incomparably greater influence on the functioning of this institution than the EU peripheries, specified as Poland.
So it is clear to this day that Germany is on its way to yet accomplish the goals they have set themselves in the late 19th century. But will they succeed?
Russian-Chinese agreement, or network structure in construction
For respective months now, we have seen a performance in the form of caying Germans before Poles for not listening to us on Russian matters. erstwhile German president Joachim Gauck was publically incarcerated27, as well as a fierce Polish eater, erstwhile Bundestag chairman, Wolfgang Schäuble28. erstwhile they want Polish vanity, they hide the fact that they had to change their politics towards Russia, due to the fact that this 1 simply "brought off their leash". The Germans knew precisely what they were doing and they regret nothing. They simply failed to make Russia sufficiently dependent on themselves to be an obedient tool in their hands. What happened in the meantime?
What happened was that Russia was “successful” Germany for China, which has become its strategical partner. This cooperation has been strengthened for respective years, but the West did not full believe in the reality of specified an alliance. We have inactive heard about Siberia being taken over by the Chinese, about the anti-Chinese Russian-American alliance cemented by Putin and Trump's collaborations, allegedly fighting together with the “deep state”, or simply about the fact that specified an alliance is simply impossible in the world. And the close strategical and ideological cooperation between Russia and China became a fact, as expressed by Joint message by the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on the entry of global relations into a fresh era and global sustainability issued by the leaders of both countries at the Beijing Olympic Games29.
The importance of this declaration goes beyond the issue of Chinese-Russian cooperation. It is clear and clear on which model of global relations this cooperation is to take place. It is undoubtedly a decentralised model, based on sovereign national states, alternatively than an imperial model. China and Russia don't build an empire, they build a network.
Based on the analysis of the actions undertaken by the PRC in fresh years, we can already see that China is acting according to completely different geostrategic assumptions than the geopolitics born in the "age of empire". China is not trying to make anything like a “Chinese empire”, a compact space subordinate to the Chinese headquarters. They are not even trying to make something like a block of closely dependent and related states to China, as was the case during the Cold War on both sides of the Iron Curtain. The initiative of 1 Belt – 1 Way is governed by completely different assumptions than the 19th century German, American and even pro-European geopolitics (i.e. opting for the creation of a large European space) mainstreaming of French geopolitics. The basic thought of the Chinese task is not to build a centralised structure, ideologically, strategically, economically, etc. from the centre, which mostly uses the resources of the periphery to build its own power position. The Chinese do not think of the categories of hierarchical and holistic dependence of the weaker on the strong and dominant centre, which simultaneously uniforms the full structure from the top to gain easier access to all its resources. At this point, the Chinese task is based on a fresh and forward-looking concept of the network, i.e. the links and dependence of the horizontal kind alternatively than vertical, thus based on horizontal relationships.
The Russian-Chinese declaration shows a clear imagination of the drive to decentralize the planet and a fresh concept of informal planet hegemony. China forms a network of various links whose bloodstream are to be 1 Belt and 1 Road, covering the full globe, nevertheless without building a compact block around them. It is an economical initiative, a way of trade and technological cooperation, in which countries with even conflicting political interests and completely different ideologies participate. The network is fundamentally based on bilateral agreements, and where multilateral agreements, even formalised in the form of global organisations, arise, they deal with cutting-edge issues that may be subject to a broader consensus. However, participants in these agreements may disagree completely on many another issues. The basis of this network is so far advanced pragmatism and flexibility.
The implementation of the Chinese task marks the end of the imperial model that dominated the full 20th century. We do not have an imperialized Chinese civilization mission and any ideology that China imposes on another countries. There is no desire to build any compact structure, to master a compact space whose inhabitants are to submit to the advanced imperial power. This is very good news for the world, due to the fact that the effect of imperialism was to mobilise all the resources of empires in the fight against another empires, or those who resisted the power of that empire. Thus, the 20th century is simply a period of bleeding out wars, conquests, the extermination of full nations, and the unparalleled exploitation of conquered societies. The conflicts that were going on were not of a local or even global nature, but were about the struggles between rival large spaces, and so they were highly extended conflicts. Ideologies, on the another hand, served to mobilize millions of people to fight against the enemy of an empire or “barbaryans” based on the power of a peculiar empire. And it all came down to the logic of conquest and exploitation, so that the rich center could be even richer, and that it could perpetuate its control over the poorer suburbs. At this minute it is besides clear that the Western planet does not realize the Chinese logic of action at all, as well as the groundbreaking nature of the Chinese-Russian agreement. He stubbornly adheres to imperial logic, of course throwing it at the other side.
The Chinese thought is ruled by a full fresh logic, and in terms of global relations it is simply a return to the concept of a sovereign state that emerged in the late mediate Ages and the institution of informal hegemon as a kind of primus inter pares, which no uncertainty was France at the time of the adoption of the Westphalia Peace in 1648. The Chinese economical initiative does not lead to the abolition of national sovereignty as is the case in the imperial model, especially in the German European Union.
In our opinion, this is simply a very desirable direction of development, due to the fact that specified a decentralised, networked global control strategy is much more resistant to crises and breakdowns than the imperial model. The empire has it against each other, that erstwhile their center falls, everything falls with them, due to the fact that periphery usually loses the ability to be autonomous systems. Humanity has had the chance to watch this in fresh times at the time of the collapse of the USSR, although specified an archetype for the Western planet of course remains the collapse of the Roman Empire, which has reversed civilization Europe for many hundreds of years.
Map of the borders laid down in the Treaty of Brest (1918)Source: File:Map Treaty Brest-Litovsk.jpg
Westerners don't realize that the planet they're utilized to is slow ending. Most of them are mentally and economically full controlled by a narrow group holding power, utilizing various organizations, including global and full states, to safe their own interests and utilizing resources of full nations for their mafia purposes. The same mafia strategy for perfection mastered the art of propaganda and intellectual manipulation, causing millions of people to lose their ability to live without the stimulus of TVs, computers, and smartphones. They are bombarded with a completely unified message, meaning the fast spread of various info- and normoviruses. At this moment, however, everything points to the fact that this strategy will shortly begin to endure from failure and, as a result, the domino will start to fall apart like a home of cards, which will mean the poorness of millions of people who have already lost their ability to organise and self-government.
In the context of Europe, this means that sooner or later the task of "European integration" will collapse, which will, of course, be the end of German and American imperialism, as European integration after 1945 was based on the pillars of both imperialisms. Our western neighbors should want that they would yet clear their heads of all kinds of imperialism and see that it is in their well-conceived interest that they should begin to function as a average national state, intertwined into a network of various dependencies, created from the bottom up, without having to uniform everything and all. It will be better for them, it will be best for Europe, and if they do this lesson, they will be able to carry out their favourite function as a Primus and a function model for the full world. What we want from the bottom of our hearts.
We are witnessing the construction of a new, post-imperial and decentralised strategy of global relations.
Magdalena Ziętek-Wielomska – investigation Institute Pro vita bona
for: https://www.modernmysl.pl/
1 I discussed this more specifically in my book: M. Ziętek-Welomska, German Dream of Empire, Warsaw 2022, pp. 136 and n.
2 The president Space and Politics in German Political Thought, [in:] A. Wolff-Powęska, E. Schulz (ed.), Space and politics. From the past of German Political Thought, Poznań 2000, p. 43.
3 R. Sprengel, Kritik der Geopolitik. Ein deutscher Diskurs 1914-1944, Berlin 1996, p. 26.
4 The President Der Staat als Lebensform, Leipzig 1917, J.R. Kjellén, Country as a surviving organism and another texts, crowd. K. Zwyniński, T. Zwyniński, Warsaw 2021.
5 The president Space and Politics in German Political Thoughtp. 62.
6 Cit. per: ibid., pp. 49-50.
7 Ibid. p. 66.
8 Ibid. p. 81.
9Countries from East to West, from South to North, needed Europe to be a actual partner. We can be the sharers of a better global order. This is Europe’s revolution. And it is what European citizens want. OJ L von der Leyen, Political guides for the next European Commission 2019-2024; beginning message in the European Parliament plenary session 16 July 2019; Speech in the European Parliament plenary session 27 November 2019, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/publication/62e534f4-62c1-11ea-b735-01a75ed71a1.
10 Critical discussion of German policy: M. Müller-Hennig, Brüsseler Großmachtphantasien, 22.11.2019, https://www.ipg-journal.de/rubriken/aussen-und-sicherheitspolitik/artikel/bruesseler-grossmachtphantasien-3891.
11 Regierungserklärung in der Sondersitzung zum Krieg gegen die Ukraine vor dem Deutschen Bundestag am 27. February 2022 in Berlin, www.bundesregierung.de.
12 O. Scholz, Die EU must zu ein geopolitischen Akteur werden, 17.07.2022, https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/die-gegenwart/scholz-zum-ukraine-krieg-eu-muss-geopolitischer-akteur-werden-18176580.html?premium.
13 Ibid.
14 J. Bielecki, Interview: Bundeswehr in Poland? German Ambassador: I can imagine specified a thing, 28.02.2022, https://www.rp.pl/diplomacy/art35775231-bundeswehra-w-polsce-ambasador-German-mobie-something-such-imagin.
15 J. Bielecki, Bundeswehra, a friend of Poland, 21.11.2022, https://www.rp.pl/comments/art37453341-jedrzej-bielecki-bundeswehra-friend-Polish.
16 The president Age of Empire 1875–1914, crowd. M. Starnawski, Warsaw 2016.
17 Cit. per: A. Wolff-Powęska, E. Schulz, Space and Politics in German Political Thought, pp. 34–35. It is worth pointing out at this point that the imagination of mastering the full Danube basin was 1 of the reasons for German participation in the demolition of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
18 It was a celebrated message by the secretary of state in the German MFA, Bernhard von Bülow of 6 December 1897. "We do not want to leave anyone in the shadows, but we request our place under the sun." Ibid. p. 36.
19 C. Andler, Pan-germanism: Its Plans for German Expansion in the World, crowd. J.S., Paris 1915, p. 9.
20 Mr Dmowski, Germany, Russia and Poland. Choice of Scripture, t. 1New York 1988.
21 M. Ziemek-Wielkomska, The state (national) and the empire: 2 principles of organising global political governance from the point of view of political philosophy, Pro Fide Rege et Lege 2020, No 84, pp. 301–326.
22 The president Imperial. Die Logik der Welterrsschaft – vom Alten Rom bis zu den Vereinigten Staaten, Berlin 2016, p. 8.
23 Ibid. p. 16.
24 Ibid. p. 28.
25 Ibid. p. 134.
26 Ibid. p. 135.
27 J. Lepiar, Former German president Gauck: you had to perceive to Poland, 24.12.2022, https://www.dw.com/en/by%C5%82y-President-rfn-gauck-needs%C5%82o-s%C5%82ucha%C4%87-Polish/a-64206867.
28 The president German politician commented on the crisis caused by the war in Ukraine and admitted that it was essential to perceive to Poland, 18.09.2022, https://polskiobservator.de/updates/wolfgang-schauble-o-polska-president-polski-mial-rations/.
29 The president Russia and China are making a joint statement. It's about NATO., 04.02.2022, https://news.wp.pl/Russia-i-chiny-issues-common-statement-walks-on-6733702518024928a.
Thank you for your interest in our magazine. We are counting on information support: your comments and polemics with our texts and sending your own articles. We can besides be supported materially.
Transfer data:
Pro Vita Bon investigation Institute
BGŻ BNP PARIBAS, Warsaw
Account No: 79160014621841495000000001
Data for abroad transfers:
PL79160014621841495000000001
SWIFT: PPABPLPK
