The abysmal gap between military geostrategists’ views on the world as being a battlefield over strategic hotspots, straits, sea routes, military bases and commodity assets, versus diplomats’ view of geostrategy as a frictional meeting between headstrong dynamic people, is probably the reason for the existence of military attache officials who combine the best of both worlds. Military attaches are usually younger and always low in rank. I can only assume it is the diplomats who rule in the house of diplomats. They shouldn’t be so skird of professionals.
There is thus a difference between geostrategy (military thinking) and geopolitics (diplomatic thinking).
Geopolitics is ”guts” according to one definition.
Geostrategy is inevitable facts; who has what and where, and who wins a conflict with this what?
Almost any fool can conduct geopolitical work. But conducting the work of a geostrategic task is often a privilige for a few briefed men, often high ranking militaries, government leaders and industrialists within a closed circle of people. Nothing is initiated by chance at the top level. On the other hand, the intentions of others and decisive events often gets randomized in crazy interactions.
It is enough that only one party is aware that they have a geostrategic superiority. If they do, then it is possible to go out and make geopolitics of it. A fog of war is usually created by the protagonists at selected occasions in any given conflict. But sooner or later, the conflict will return to the origin of the conflict – the geostrategy i.e. the strategic hotspots and commodities.
Everybody does not agree with me about what makes up a geostrategical task and what makes up a geopolitical task. Some wouldn’t even separate the two into dual significations. This is my definition.
How would you define grand politics and geo-strategy, are they the same?
Roger M. Klang, defense political spokesman for the Christian Values Party (Kristna Värdepartiet) in Sweden