We are currently in a situation of geopolitical turbulence. On the one hand, for many it is political uncertainty and instability. For others, this is a good time in geoeconomics, especially for those actors who stays outsides of main conflicts. Political scientists also talks about the growth of the middle powers, which use the existing opportunities to improve their position in politics, economy, diplomacy and international relations.
At the same time, there is an opinion that as the world system changes from unipolarity to multipolarity, we are in a techno-polar moment.
Even technological countries or groups of states such as the EU and the United States are quite concerned about sovereignty in the field of critical technologies, especially microelectronics and high-tech manufacturing. And the reason for this was the same – the deindustrialization of the past decades and an attempt to use globalization to exploit other countries where production was moved. But with the current global defragmentation, technological leadership is becoming the key not only to economic preferences, but also to geopolitical stability.
Global instability also makes us think about reliable partners – whether fragile states, if the political or economic situation worsens for them, will be able to follow to their obligations.
The connecting element between all the players is the infrastructure. Recently, a special term has even appeared – infra-politics, which reflects how political decisions affect the situation with infrastructure systems. All states are elements of the complex chain of interdependence of world economy.
Other risks can be added to this. Thus, sanctions can have a long-term effect on third countries, since, as a rule, they are imposed against such sectors of the economy that directly affect economic competition and the country’s defense capability. Some believe that even climate change can also pose threats to access to necessary products and technological innovations.
The EU, for example, has come to the following conclusions regarding the geopolitics of the supply chain: – there are significant risks associated with trade diversification due to the fragility of the state, economic coercion and climate vulnerability; – a diversification strategy is likely to be applied to raw materials or components, rather than high-tech areas such as data processors, telecommunications, or supercomputers, which require large investments to sustain themselves; – The existing EU trade partnerships are a good basis for diversification.
At the same time, the EU tried to introduce special tariffs and restrictive measures, hoping to gain a competitive advantage in this way. And Donald Trump’s new tariff policy shows that this only introduces serious uncertainty into transatlantic relations (and beyond), effectively recreating a regime of great powers more characteristic even of the 19th century than of the 20th with its world wars and the bipolar system of the second half of the century. The question is whether the leading players will use the same score for the concert, or will each have their own part.
It seems that second option is more useful and in context of geostrategy we should pay more attention on Eurasia. Geopolitically it always was prize for external actors like Britain or United States. There is kind of idea fixe of the control over Eurasia reflected in books of H. Mackinder, N. Spykman and Z. Brzezinsky.
For this reason, pressure continues on Russia – Heartland of Eurasia. For the same reason, Western countries are actively trying to penetrate into Central Asia, the Hinterland, which is an organic link between North and South, as well as between West and East of Eurasia.
As a post-Soviet space, these countries already have a certain infrastructure, but as independent states they have their own interests, which often contradict the interests of their neighbors. Firstly, there are constant disputes about the control of water resources, which are scarce for the region, so the issue of hydro-hegemony is automatically raised. Energy is another important factor. In addition to the existing electric power grids, the possibility of building new nuclear power plants is being considered.
The Russian Rosatom company already has contracts with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, where it is planned to build power units. Negotiations are underway with Kyrgyzstan on the construction of low-power nuclear power plants. Increasing energy independence through such projects will help significantly enhance the capabilities of these countries and reduce tensions related to energy hunger. We must consider all this in the context of the current global challenges, also related to climate change, the use of new technologies such as data centers, as well as the ongoing extraction of minerals from oil and gas to rare earth metals.
At the same time, it is impossible not to pay attention to the myths of the so-called green economy, the active elements of which may have an undesirable effect in the future. For example, we can take solar panels and wind turbines. In addition to the fact that their creation requires components that are associated with harmful production, there is no truly ecological technology for the disposal of used panels or plates of wind turbines. Therefore, they cannot be considered 100 percent environmentally friendly. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the issues of producer price ratios – China is currently leading in this area, where there is a clear overproduction of these products, as well as electric vehicles. And as part of the Belt and Road strategy, China is also conducting trade interventions in the sale of alternative energy production systems.
Thus, we see a special type of competition, where China has a clear advantage, since this segment remains in demand from external consumers.
If we continue to talk about competition in the region, Turkey is another active player, but it tries to act through cultural and political strategies – through the Organization of Turkic states, constructing an artificial ideology of common identity. Along with the cultural and political strategy, a business track is also being developed, including the sale of goods and the interests of construction companies. These companies are theoretically interested in developing the infrastructure of Central Asian countries, as this means obtaining construction contracts.
However, two more powerful players remain – Iran and Afghanistan. Both countries have shown remarkable resilience in resisting external pressure, including the use of military force. Both countries need long-term reconstruction and development, including through projects of international importance, such as the North-South corridor, the TAPI pipeline, and many other initiatives.
We have now listed a set of facts. However, specific solutions are needed to implement large-scale strategies. It already depends on the political leaders of the countries of the region. For its part, Russia is interested in strengthening the stability of this soft underbelly of Eurasia, so expanding partnership in terms of infrastructure projects would be in Moscow’s interests.
Comments