The inaugural roundtable, organized in cooperation with the Berlin-based Eurasian Society, provided a platform to discuss developments such as the perceived decline of Western unipolarity, the emergence of what some speakers termed “civilizational states,” and differing interpretations of value-based foreign policy in a more fragmented global environment.
A mandate for inclusivity in a changing world
The launch took place during what Efe Can Gürcan, the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, described as a period of “profound change” and “major transition.” Dr. Gürcan, affiliated with Queen’s University Belfast and the Turkish Academy of Sciences, outlined the journal’s aim to broaden discussions within the field of geopolitics.
“Today we’re meeting at a moment of profound change… and geopolitics is once again moving on the headlines, on the forefront of our agenda,” Gürcan stated in his opening remarks. He noted that despite growing interest in geopolitical issues, there remain “very few academic journals which are exclusively focused or devoted to the study of geopolitics.”
According to Gürcan, the journal seeks to move beyond conventional binaries often present in geopolitical debates. “Geopolitics is often framed by reference to conflict, exclusion, rivalry,” he observed. “While this is partially true, we prefer to take a much more expansive approach… at the end of the day, it all comes down to one simple word: inclusivity.” He outlined three pillars of this approach:
Geographical inclusivity, encouraging contributions from scholars across all the seven continents, not just the West, not just the East, not just the Global South.”
Disciplinary inclusivity, incorporating perspectives from various disciplines including history, sociology, and economics,
Analytical inclusivity, integrating perspectives from International Relations (IR) theory as well as both traditional and critical geopolitics, and examining not only conflict but also cooperation, connectivity, and non-traditional security issues.
Efecan Gürcan
“In Global Geopolitics, the term ‘global’ is not used in the same sense as ‘globalism,’” Gürcan clarified, adding that “it is a conscious and meaningful choice on our part,” which does not imply alignment with any specific political project or ideological agenda. Rather, the pairing of “global” and “geopolitics” is deliberate, underscoring the journal’s commitment to geographical, disciplinary, and analytical inclusivity alongside academic rigor.
The journal’s editorial infrastructure reflects today’s multipolar reality, boasting a board with representatives from the UK, Canada, India, China, Japan, Brazil, Peru, Türkiye, among others. The first issue addresses topics such as the Ukraine conflict, energy policy, and global migration through empirical research.
The failure of moralism and the return of “realpolitik”
Following Dr. Gürcan’s introduction, the keynote session was opened by Alexander Rahr, Chairman of the Eurasian Society and a veteran historian formerly associated with the German Council on Foreign Relations. Rahr delivered a scathing critique of the current intellectual climate in Germany and Western Europe, arguing that the fixation on “liberal values” has rendered traditional diplomatic analysis obsolete.
“Germany, but also some other European countries, are now focused 100% in their view, in their analysis, in their policy, on so-called liberal values and nothing else,” Rahr asserted. He argued that this moral absolutism was sustainable only when the West was unchallenged. “It went okay for the West to have this kind of projection over the past 25 or 35 years when the West was united, the West was strong… Now we are in serious trouble.”
Rahr framed the launch of the journal as a necessary intervention to reintroduce “Realpolitik” into the European discourse. He lamented the lack of diverse voices in the German public sphere, contrasting it unfavorably with the United States, where figures like John Mearsheimer or Jeffrey Sachs still command attention.
For Rahr, the geopolitical imperative for Europe is clear: a pivot toward understanding, rather than lecturing, the emerging powers. “I would like to make the focus on the BRICS countries,” he said. “These BRICS countries… have the potential of becoming new poles in the world.”
He argued that for Germany and Europe, getting closer to these nations is not merely an economic option but a security necessity. “Only by doing this we can sustain, maintain peace and cooperation in this complex multipolar world.” Rahr specifically highlighted the need to comprehend “Chinese thinking” and “Indian thinking,” areas where he claims European elites know “very little, almost nothing.”
The dangers of the “missionary mentality”
Dr. Christopher Mott, a Washington Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, addressed what he called the “dangers of missionary mentality.” Dr. Mott offered a realist deconstruction of the liberal international order, warning that the impulse to convert the world to a single ideological standard is a recipe for endless conflict.
Mott began by quoting the philosopher George Santayana: “The humanitarian, like the missionary, is often an irreconcilable enemy of the people he seeks to befriend because he has not imagination enough to sympathize with their proper needs nor humility enough to respect them as if they were his own.”
Mott argued that the “unipolar moment” following the Soviet collapse was a “freakish occurrence” in history, lasting at most 20 years. The shock currently felt in Western capitals, he suggested, stems from a refusal to accept that normalcy—historical multipolarity—has returned.
Christopher Mott
“99% of human history was effectively multipolar,” Mott noted. “How do we most constructively learn to be normal again after having bathed in the mentally stultifying lies of a universal human destiny?”
He cautioned against viewing the emerging order as a shared journey. “There is no shared political journey. The future will be as divergent as the past was,” Mott said. He advocated for “polycentrism,” a system where different regimes and ideologies coexist based on “sovereign geographic entities” rather than a forced consensus.
“Liberal internationalism, in its quest to become a universal arbiter of morality… forgot that once upon a time its greatest asset was that it acknowledged many forms of being,” Mott said, referencing the philosophy of Spinoza and Hobbes. He warned European states against becoming a “Saudi Arabia of militant humanism,” exporting a universalist worldview that isolates them from the rest of the globe.
Mott’s prescription for the North Atlantic was a return to “situational realism” and local interest. He closed by invoking George Washington’s Farewell Address, citing the founding father’s warning against weaving “artificial ties” with foreign powers. “Reject Baerbockism, embrace situ-realism,” Mott concluded, referring to the current German Foreign Minister’s value-based diplomacy.
Deconstructing the “West” and the “Global South”
Professor Jagannath Panda, Head of the Stockholm Center for South Asian and Indo-Pacific Affairs, shifted the focus to the structural dynamics of power in Asia and the broader globe. Panda challenged the very terminology used to describe the current order, suggesting that the binary of “East vs. West” has dissolved.
Reflecting on the recent World Economic Forum, Panda observed: “What I found very interesting in Davos is that there was less about economics… it was more about political economy, political security.” He went further, stating that speeches from leaders like Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau revealed a fracturing of the traditional Western bloc.
“There is nothing called ‘West’ today,” Panda argued. “If West does not exist, then can we really say that there is a fight exist between West and East? Probably there is no fight.” He extended this skepticism to the term “Global North,” suggesting that the convergence of interests is creating a “contesting world order” where countries partake in multiple, overlapping typologies of power.
Panda distinguished between multilateralism (a process establishing networks), multipolarism (the structural base of power), and multipolarity (the medium through which power is distributed). He cited BRICS as a unique entity that combines all three, unlike the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which functions purely as a multilateral mechanism.
Highlighting the growing strategic autonomy of nations, Panda pointed to the recent trade negotiations between India and the European Union. He noted that for the first time, EU leaders were chief guests at India’s Republic Day, signaling a “special chemistry” driven by mutual necessity rather than ideological alignment. “Both sides talk about something unique: strategic autonomy,” Panda said.
Panda also predicted a shift in the nature of global conflict. While territorial disputes remain, he warned that “resource politics is going to be shaping the global politics in times to come.” He identified coastal and corridor nations—such as Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives—as critical players in this new arena, where control over supply chains and raw materials will supersede traditional land grabs.
The empire of chaos and energy wars
The final keynote was delivered by Thomas Fazi, an Italian journalist and author known for his critique of neoliberalism. Fazi provided the most confrontational assessment of the day, characterizing the current geopolitical transition as the end of “500 years of Western economic, political, and military global hegemony.”
Fazi argued that while the rise of the non-Western world should be a natural evolution, the Western elite views it as an “existential threat,” leading to a form of “clinical” insanity in policymaking. “The US and Western powers [are] doing everything they can to slow down, if not stall, this transition to multipolarity,” Fazi said.
Thomas Fazi
He offered a provocative analysis of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, suggesting that what appears to be erratic behavior is actually a strategy of “engineered permanent chaos.” According to Fazi, Trump is not attacking random countries but “targeting the weak links” in the China-led system, such as Venezuela and Iran.
“Chaos… in Trump’s strategy is part of the strategy itself,” Fazi posited. He linked this to a broader US objective: re-establishing control over the physical and financial flows of energy. Fazi argued that the “unraveling” of the petrodollar system, driven by nations like Russia and Iran trading outside US jurisdiction, poses a lethal threat to American hegemony.
Lively Q&A highlights diverse perspectives on power, trade, and Europe’s future
Responding to a question about the resilience of non-Western powers, Mott argued that states with deep historical roots, distinct from mere nation-states, are overperforming.
“A state whose basis… is based in something a bit more historic than just election cycles… these are the states that will outperform,” Mott said. He cited China, India, and Ethiopia as prime examples of powers that can weather political storms because their identity transcends a single form of government. He contrasted this with the fragility of the Arab nation-states compared to the historical depth of Türkiye and Iran. “Iran has a level of continuity that enables it to punch above its weight.”
Rahr added a European dimension to this concept, arguing that Europe once possessed a form of “cultural unity” that has been eroded by “80 years of Americanization.” He warned that without recovering this cultural memory—which he insisted must include Russia—Europe risks being fractured or reduced to vassalage.
The Q&A session also addressed the economic architecture of the coming era. Responding to inquiries about the future global economy, the panelists agreed that the era of unfettered globalization is over, replaced by securitized trade and protectionism.
“You’re definitely going to see a pivot away from international free trade across the board,” Mott predicted. “Everything is going to be justified under the terms of national security.” He described a future of “state-directed preferred trade methods,” where efficiency is sacrificed for geopolitical reliability.
Fazi concurred, noting that the “free market” was always a myth in the West, but argued that the current shift represents a “fusion of state and corporate power.” He lamented that this retreat from globalization is being framed defensively rather than as an opportunity to improve domestic living standards. “We’re not seeing Western leaders talk about… investing to improve the lives of our citizens. No, we have to secure… so our enemies can’t blackmail us.”
Panda added that while protectionism will rise, so will the complexity of trade disputes. He pointed to the EU-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) not as a triumph of liberal economics, but as a “compromised deal” born of necessity. “Europe is in massive need of partnerships… economic security,” Panda said, noting that the deal represents a diversification away from China and the US for both parties.
Jagannath Panda
The discussion concluded with a debate on Europe’s role in a multipolar system. Fazi took a hardline stance, arguing that the European Union and NATO are structurally incapable of adapting to the new reality. “The European Union is a completely ahistorical reality… an imperial model which has hollowed out democracy,” Fazi claimed, dismissing hopes for reform as “illusions.”
Panda, however, offered a more moderate view, suggesting that Europe’s indecisiveness is its greatest weakness. “The time has come to take a call… to have a future army,” Panda urged, advocating for a Europe that acts as an independent pole rather than a US dependency.
Mott offered a final strategic prescription for the emerging order: a “modus vivendi” based on the rejection of hegemony. “The one thing that definitely should unite future architects of a stable multipolar order is to combat revisionism effectively,” Mott said. He envisioned a system of “counterbalancing forces” and “non-aligned leagues” that act as buffers to prevent any single power from dominating the globe.