The Restful Record Sleep Podcast S2 E8: Geopolitics

In this episode of The Restful Record, we explore geopolitics — the study of how geography shapes power, conflict, and cooperation between states. Using real-world examples drawn from history and current events, this episode examines why certain places matter again and again, from shipping canals and energy corridors to contested borders and strategic alliances. We move through key concepts students encounter in university courses, including classical geopolitical theory, Cold War strategy, energy geopolitics, and the influence of small states with outsized global roles.

Listeners will learn how geography continues to shape modern political decisions, from oil and gas networks linking Russia, Ukraine, Europe, and North America, to the strategic importance of regions like the Middle East and the Arctic. The episode also looks at contemporary case studies, including U.S.–Venezuela oil relations, Canada’s energy security strategy, and Israel’s geopolitical role in maintaining Western interests in a complex region.

Designed for thoughtful listening and calm reflection, this episode of The Restful Record offers a clear, accessible introduction to geopolitics for students, lifelong learners, and anyone interested in understanding how the structure of the world influences everyday life. No prior background is required — just curiosity about how borders, resources, and geography quietly shape the global order.

💤 Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell if you enjoy this content! It helps support the podcast and brings more peaceful episodes your way.

Podcast cover art image by Eric Nopanen.

Transcript

In March of 2021, a container ship became lodged sideways in the Suez Canal. It wasn’t a warship, and it wasn’t part of a conflict. It was a commercial vessel, caught by wind and navigational error, blocking a narrow waterway in Egypt that connects the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. Within hours, hundreds of ships were forced to stop. Oil tankers waited in line. Cargo carrying car parts, medical supplies, and food sat idle. Manufacturers in Europe and Asia began reporting delays. A single obstruction, in a single place, was enough to interrupt trade moving between continents.

 That moment helps explain what geopolitics is. Geopolitics is the study of how physical space shapes political and economic power. It looks at how coastlines determine trade routes, how rivers become borders, how mountain ranges provide protection, and how narrow passages — canals, straits, and chokepoints — concentrate influence. It asks why certain locations repeatedly draw international attention, investment, or military presence, and why control over territory can affect countries far beyond their own borders.

In this season of The Restful Record, we walk through the great halls of knowledge, exploring things one would learn in a university classroom. Tonight's episode - geopolitics. . We’ll look at how geography influences alliances, conflicts, and global systems — from energy networks to shipping routes to contested borders. These are issues that  shape everyday life, whether we’re aware of them or not.

In 1904, British geographer Halford Mackinder presented a theory that would shape strategic thinking for more than a century. He argued that political power followed geography, and that the most important region on Earth was not the oceans, but the vast landmass of central Eurasia. Mackinder called this area the “Heartland,” stretching roughly from Eastern Europe across Siberia. His claim was direct: whoever controlled Eastern Europe could access the Heartland, and whoever controlled the Heartland could command the world. The theory reflected a fear common at the time — that railways were making land power more efficient, allowing large continental states to project influence without relying on naval routes.

 Although the language of the Heartland Theory is rarely used today, its logic still appears in modern alliances and military planning. NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe follows the same geographic concern Mackinder described: the space between Western Europe and Russia has historically been a corridor for invasion and influence. Countries like Poland, the Baltic states, and Ukraine sit along this strategic frontier. Control, alignment, or instability in these regions affects not only local security, but the balance of power across the European continent. What looks like political disagreement often rests on older geographic calculations.

 A similar logic explains why major powers were deeply involved in the Middle East long before the discovery of oil. The region sits at the junction of Europe, Asia, and Africa, linking land and sea routes through the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and the Indian Ocean. Empires from Rome to Britain fought to control it not for its resources, but for its position — as a passageway for trade, military movement, and communication. Mackinder’s theory helps explain this pattern: certain places matter not because of what they produce, but because of where they are. Geography, once again, shapes power before ideology or economics ever enter the picture.

Let's take a step back and explore the concept of borders for a moment. Many modern borders were not drawn to reflect local identities, languages, or social ties. Instead, they were often imposed by empires during periods of colonization, negotiated in distant capitals with little knowledge of the regions involved. These borders created states that contained rival groups or divided communities that had long been connected. The political consequences of those decisions continue to shape conflict and governance today.

The Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916 divided much of the Ottoman Empire’s Arab territories between British and French influence. The resulting borders helped form states like Iraq and Syria, where diverse ethnic and religious groups were placed within single political units. These borders did not cause instability on their own, but they established fragile frameworks that later governments struggled to manage. Geopolitics helps explain why certain regions experience recurring tension: the lines on the map themselves were products of power, not geography or society.

Maps are often treated as neutral tools, but they shape how the world is understood. Decisions about scale, projection, and orientation influence which regions appear central and which appear peripheral. The most widely used world map, the Mercator projection, enlarges regions closer to the poles while shrinking those near the equator. As a result, Europe and North America appear far larger than Africa or South America, reinforcing assumptions about importance and dominance.

 These distortions matter because maps are used in classrooms, newsrooms, and government planning. They influence how distance, proximity, and threat are perceived. When policymakers look at a map that places Europe at the center and exaggerates its size, it subtly reinforces geopolitical hierarchies. Geopolitics examines not only territory itself, but how representations of space influence political thinking and decision-making.

Now let's talk about The Cold War as a Geopolitical Chessboard. After the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as rival superpowers, but they rarely fought each other directly. Instead, competition played out across specific regions of the world, chosen not only for political alignment, but for their geographic position. The Korean Peninsula sits between China, Russia, and Japan; Vietnam lies along key Southeast Asian sea routes; Afghanistan connects Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East. These were not random battlefields. Each location mattered because it occupied a strategic crossroads within a larger global map.

Seen through a geopolitical lens, the Cold War was less about ideology spreading spontaneously and more about controlling space. Military bases, friendly governments, and access to ports or borders became tools for maintaining balance. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, it wasn’t simply supporting a regime — it was attempting to secure influence near warm-water routes and regional corridors. Likewise, U.S. involvement in Vietnam reflected concerns about access to the Pacific and the containment of influence along Asia’s coastlines. The wars felt local to those who lived through them, but their origins were tied to global calculations about geography and power.

Some of the most important locations in global politics are only a few miles wide. These are known as chokepoints: narrow passages where trade, energy, or military traffic is forced to pass through limited space. The Strait of Hormuz, for example, sits between Iran and Oman, and a significant portion of the world’s oil exports moves through it every day. Any disruption — whether from conflict, sanctions, or naval tension — has immediate effects on global energy prices and supply chains.

The Suez Canal offers another clear example. By linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, it shortens the distance between Europe and Asia by thousands of miles. When a single container ship blocked the canal in 2021, vessels were forced to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks to shipping times and increasing costs. These chokepoints demonstrate a central principle of geopolitics: control over a small physical space can generate influence far beyond its size. Power, in this case, is not measured in territory or population, but in the ability to regulate movement through critical pathways.

Another importance in geopolitics is energy. Energy resources are not evenly distributed across the globe, and the routes used to transport them matter as much as the resources themselves. Oil and natural gas must move through pipelines, ports, and shipping lanes, creating networks that tie producers, transit states, and consumers together. Control over these routes can create leverage. Countries that sit along major pipelines often gain political influence, while countries dependent on imported energy must manage vulnerability alongside economic need.

The relationship between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe illustrates this clearly. For decades, Russian natural gas flowed to European markets through pipelines crossing Ukrainian territory. This arrangement made Europe dependent on Russian supply and gave Ukraine strategic importance as a transit state. When political relations deteriorated, energy became a tool of pressure: gas supplies were reduced or rerouted, prices rose, and European governments were forced to reconsider energy security. In this case, geopolitics emerged not from battlefields, but from infrastructure embedded in the landscape.

 A current geopolitical flashpoint tied to energy is the shifting relationship between the United States and Venezuela, one of the world’s largest holders of oil reserves. After years of sanctions and strained relations, the U.S. government has eased some restrictions on Venezuelan oil exports, allowing American companies to buy and refine crude oil from Venezuela for the first time in years — including recent purchases of significant cargoes. This matters because Venezuelan crude is similar in grade to the heavy oil exported by Canada’s oil sands, and U.S. Gulf Coast refineries are configured to process these heavy grades. If Venezuelan production recovers and its barrels flow into U.S. markets, some of that supply could displace Canadian exports that currently fill the gap left by sanctions. 

 Canadian producers and policymakers are pursuing diversification of export markets. Projects such as the Trans Mountain Expansion have expanded access to Asian buyers, and there is ongoing discussion about reducing dependence on the U.S. market in the face of potential competition from Venezuelan crude.

One of the oldest debates in geopolitical theory concerns whether global power is best achieved through control of land or control of the seas. Land powers tend to focus on securing borders, territory, and internal cohesion, while sea powers prioritize naval strength, trade routes, and overseas access. Geography often pushes states toward one strategy or the other.

The United States is a clear example of a sea power. Bordered by two oceans and connected to global trade through maritime routes, it maintains a powerful navy and a network of overseas bases. Russia, by contrast, has historically operated as a land-based power, expanding across contiguous territory and prioritizing depth and buffer zones over naval reach. This difference helps explain their strategic priorities, alliances, and perceptions of threat. Geopolitics provides a framework for understanding why states behave differently even when they possess similar resources or ambitions.

In geopolitics, size does not always determine importance. Some states exert influence far beyond their population or territory because of where they are located. Geography can place a country at the intersection of trade routes, energy flows, or diplomatic networks, allowing it to play a strategic role disproportionate to its scale. These states often focus on stability, infrastructure, and diplomacy to maintain their relevance.

Singapore is a clear example. Situated at the narrow Strait of Malacca, one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, it sits astride a route connecting the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. A significant portion of global maritime trade passes through this corridor. Singapore’s port infrastructure, political stability, and neutrality have made it indispensable to global commerce. Its influence does not come from military force, but from its ability to facilitate movement through a critical geographic space.

Another key example is Israel, which  is often cited as an example of how a relatively small state can exert significant geopolitical influence because of its location and strategic relationships. Situated at the eastern edge of the Mediterranean, Israel lies close to major shipping routes, energy corridors, and long-standing regional fault lines in the Middle East. Its position places it near key actors and areas of interest for the United States and other Western powers, including access to the Suez Canal, proximity to Gulf energy markets, and regional security dynamics involving neighboring states. Through military capability, intelligence cooperation, and diplomatic alignment, Israel has functioned as a stable partner for U.S. and Western interests in a region marked by frequent instability. From a geopolitical perspective, its influence is less about size and more about the role it plays within broader strategic calculations shaped by geography and alliance networks.

Another interesting location is the Arctic. For much of modern history, the Arctic was considered inaccessible and strategically marginal. Climate change has altered that calculation. As ice retreats, new shipping routes are becoming navigable, shortening travel between Europe and Asia. At the same time, access to natural resources such as oil, gas, and minerals has increased, drawing the attention of major powers.

 Russia has invested heavily in Arctic infrastructure, building ports, military bases, and icebreaker fleets along its northern coast. China, despite lacking Arctic territory, has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and invested in research stations and shipping ventures. These developments illustrate how changes in physical geography can reshape strategic priorities. The Arctic demonstrates that geopolitics is not fixed — it evolves as landscapes and access change.

Geopolitical influence is not always exercised through military presence. Large-scale infrastructure projects can also reshape political relationships. China’s Belt and Road Initiative aims to connect Asia, Africa, and Europe through networks of ports, railways, roads, and energy corridors. These projects are framed as economic development, but they also extend China’s reach across key regions.

 Ports built or financed under the initiative, such as those in Sri Lanka or Pakistan, give China long-term access to strategic maritime locations. Railways linking inland regions to coastal markets alter trade patterns and political alignments. For students of geopolitics, the Belt and Road Initiative illustrates how control over infrastructure can translate into diplomatic leverage, reshaping influence without formal territorial expansion.

Access to water and fertile land has shaped political power throughout history. Rivers cross borders, flow through multiple states, and sustain millions of people downstream. Control over these resources can become a source of cooperation or conflict, particularly as populations grow and climates change.

The Nile River basin offers a clear example. Ethiopia’s construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam has raised concerns in Egypt and Sudan, which depend on downstream water flows for agriculture and drinking supplies. The dispute is not about ideology, but about geography and survival. Geopolitics helps explain why negotiations over rivers, dams, and water rights can be as significant as disputes over territory or borders.

But not all conflicts are meant to be resolved. In geopolitics, some disputes remain deliberately unfinished because uncertainty itself can serve strategic interests. These are often referred to as frozen conflicts — regions where active fighting has stopped, but no final political settlement has been reached. Their unresolved status allows outside powers to maintain influence without the costs of full occupation or war.

Examples include Crimea, Kashmir, Transnistria, and the Korean Peninsula. In each case, borders remain contested and sovereignty is ambiguous. These regions act as pressure points, limiting the political freedom of neighboring states and shaping alliance choices. From a geopolitical perspective, the persistence of these conflicts reflects the value of control over space, even when that control is indirect or incomplete.

While geopolitics has traditionally focused on land and sea, technology has introduced new spatial dimensions. Power now depends not only on territory, but on control over digital and physical infrastructure that spans the globe. Communication, finance, and information move through specific routes that are vulnerable to disruption.

 Undersea internet cables carry the vast majority of global data traffic, connecting continents through networks laid across the ocean floor. These cables follow particular paths, often near strategic chokepoints, and are monitored and protected by states. Damage or interference can disrupt communication across entire regions. This shows that even in a digital age, geopolitics remains tied to physical geography.

Geopolitics often appears abstract, but its effects are felt in ordinary routines. Decisions made about borders, trade routes, energy supplies, and infrastructure shape the cost and availability of everyday goods. When shipping routes are disrupted, fuel prices rise, or food imports are delayed, the cause often lies in distant geographic calculations.

Geopolitics gives us a way to see patterns where events can otherwise feel disconnected. It explains why certain places appear again and again in history, why borders matter long after they’re drawn, and why decisions made far from home can shape daily life in quiet, practical ways. Rivers, coastlines, corridors, and crossings continue to influence how power is organized and exercised. As we move through this season of The Restful Record, geopolitics will serve as one lens among many — not to predict the future, but to better understand the structure of the world we already inhabit.

 Thank you for joining us on tonight's episode fo the restful record. Rest well.