Geopolitics and fantasy-geopolitics: Considerations on the quality and truthfulness of geopolitical analysis

There are many pitfalls that hide in the “meanders” of geopolitical analysis. Especially those that project the analyst (or so-called story) towards superficial and questionable considerations to say the least (often “dictated” by precise political motivations). On the other hand, we have already shown ( how geopolitical analysis is very often permeated by propaganda and how the latter overlaps with geopolitical discipline in order to hide uncomfortable realities for the political power (which, obviously, is the true creator of the geopolitical direction of a nation based on its interests, vital or otherwise). Which very often leads to analyzes that seem more like fantasy geopolitics than geopolitical. That is, such analyzes do not capture the very essence (with associated causes and consequences) of the geopolitical event but invalidate it with “ideological” elements that are extrinsic to it and, fundamentally, completely extraneous to it. All this gives rise to very serious problems regarding the truthfulness of most of the analyzes that mainstream information places before our eyes on a daily basis. In stating this we do not intend to enter into a controversy with anyone but only to reveal the inconsistency of much geopolitical analysis incessantly fed to us. This inconsistency not only raises very serious questions regarding the sources of the same but also makes the fantastic nature of much information clear. Precisely, what we define as fantasy-geopolitics. And which seems to be the bitterest enemy of the geopolitical discipline proper (i.e. geopolitical analysis “purged” of propaganda). This dichotomy seems to be particularly strong nowadays (considering the ongoing war events whose nature and aims we have tried to highlight on this blog) and reveals an irreconcilable conflictual relationship between reality and the fantastic dimension. Between the actual Machiavellian truth and the one specially “disguised” by the political summit. But let’s try to explain, specifically, what we mean by these statements. We submit to our analysis three “geopolitical phenomena” which, we believe, have mostly been made into geopolitical fiction. Offering a distorted and undoubtedly less than objective analysis of them.
If anyone has understood what the so-called “Islamic State” is, please let us know. We always want to broaden our horizons in the field of knowledge, at every level. From time to time we hear the media inform us about the actions of this mysterious entity in some corner of the globe. But what exactly is the Islamic state? There is no one who knows. Even the name turns out to be completely inappropriate since we don’t know that this formation has any territorial base around the world. And if it does not have a territorial base, what are the economic resources of this mysterious reality? How is it financed and who supports it? Nobody knows. What are its components and where do they come from? Even in this case it is impossible to give an answer. Since there is no information about it. It is obvious that this entity is nothing more than a media creation to justify military interventions with the excuse of protecting itself from who knows what. On the other hand, creating a monster to be accused in the event of the need for military intervention (to safeguard economic or more specifically geopolitical interests) in some corner of the planet is what is perfectly functional to the interests of various global geopolitical actors. And this is what happened, for example, after 2001 following the attacks on the twin towers in New York. At the time, the name “Al Qaeda” was in fashion.But the essence of the matter was the same. At his helm, we were told, was Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi tycoon already actively involved alongside the USA in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Which, needless to say, raises serious reflections on the dark nature of the organization that is the subject of our analysis. And we won’t go into the ways in which the famous September 11 attacks were carried out. There are so many things that don’t add up that it seems all too clear that behind the specially constructed media monster there were the hands of world power and of those who had the intention of unleashing a large-scale military campaign in the Middle Eastern region (in a historical phase in which the USA had not yet experienced the shale extraction revolution and was therefore still heavily dependent on the oil extracted in the Persian Gulf area). The action of the self-styled Islamic state therefore provided the pretext for these maneuvers and, on balance, was entirely functional to the interests of the Anglo-Saxon hegemon. In summary, the nature of this entity appears to us to be completely media-driven and instrumental and we are incredibly surprised when we see that geopolitical analysts contemplate its “exploits” and analyze its “profile” without considering the fantastic nature of the object of their analysis. For whom, evidently, the boundaries between geopolitics and fantasy-geopolitics appear somewhat undefined.
Another geopolitical issue that is represented in a rather nebulous and not very analytical way by most geopolitical analysts, both domestic and foreign, is the geopolitical situation that is developing in the Red Sea near the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb (which is located in the in the middle of the most important trade route in the world, vital for trade between China and Europe). The conflict situation that has been created in the area is a direct consequence (and, we could say, natural development) of the ongoing world war which sees the Anglo-Saxon hegemon and the aspiring hegemons (Russia and China) clash on the stage world geopolitics. It is misleading to attribute the action of the Yemeni rebels to the geopolitical will of Iran (of which they are closely allied) because the game being played in that specific geopolitical chessboard greatly transcends its borders. The ongoing war in the Red Sea represents, at the same time, a mortal threat to the Anglo-Saxon thalassocracy (which must demonstrate, by force, that it is still alive and well) and to the financial power of Washington and London. Not only because it poses new challenges for the issue of public debt in the West (which war expenses are causing to grow at an exponential level) but also, and above all, because the threat to commercial navigation could act on the inflationary dynamics that are already widely present in the Western economy (due to the uncontrolled printing of money by central banks) and thus harness the omnipotent action of the Western “money factory”. Since the FED and the ECB would find it very difficult to lower the cost of money with the risk of economic paralysis and permanent recession. The threat particularly concerns the old continent whose economy already appears to be very strained after the recent geopolitical developments in Eastern Europe. Therefore, far from being a mere response to Israeli aggression in Palestine (as officially declared by the Yemeni rebels and as supported by most geopolitical analysts) the military confrontation in the Red Sea has much deeper motivations that cannot be separated from the context of war for the hegemony that is maturing on the global geopolitical scene. Which, in our opinion, is only partially reported by much of the geopolitical information of today which very often appears interested in concealing the true nature of ongoing global geopolitical developments.
Another geopolitical issue that has been largely omitted or purposely distorted is the ongoing war in Ukraine. The question is, considering the interests at stake, of great importance for both the West and the East. To understand the real nature of the conflict and why the European country is of vital geopolitical importance, we refer to our previous articles ( In which we believe we have sufficiently clarified the issue. What we are interested in in this article is to clarify how the ongoing conflict is not a conflict between Moscow and Kiev but is, de facto, a direct war between the Anglo-Saxon empire and its vassals on the one hand and Moscow and Beijing on the other. We have also written extensively about this in our recent articles ( This reality, in our opinion, is not sufficiently highlighted by much of the current geopolitical analysis. We understand how delicate the issue is but we believe that reality cannot be sweetened or disguised at will. Kiev’s purely instrumental role in the conflict between the great powers of the planet cannot in any way be hidden. The analyst who does this lies to himself. And to those who read the articles. Ukraine, understood as a sovereign nation and delimited by precise territorial borders, does not exist and has never existed. Ukrainians and all those who believe that the war in Ukraine serves to maintain its independence and prosperity should be informed of this. Because, essentially, both have already been destroyed. As well as hundreds of thousands of human lives involved, alas, in the enormous tragedy of the ongoing world war.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *