Description
‘Geopolitics’, as used in both EU discourse and scholarly works, is undefined, often trivial, or implies great power competition which is not forthcoming. To define the term, the article uses geopolitical theory as outlined by Stefano Guzzini, concluding that geopolitics is not particularly specific, instead it is made specific by a strategy that links policies to geography. However, the relationship between geopolitical theory and geopolitical strategy is full of contradictions that result in geopolitics’ ‘final indeterminacy’. This ‘final indeterminacy’ is productive, as it militarises policies by linking them to geography. With decision makers’ imagination being dominated by militarisation, the probability of conflict, even if it is unintended, increases. Empirically, the article contrasts the EU’s geopolitical strategy in development cooperation around the Global Gateway and Team Europe and its financial programming documents towards five Central Asian states with geopolitical theory. It demonstrates the existence of geopolitical confusion in relation to decreased EU budgeting, unrealistic expectations towards private financial investors, the EBRD, and the liberal investment framework. The article also shows the intention of geopoliticising additional policies. In Central Asia, politics remain influenced by a larger set of discourses, but to decrease tensions the EU must refrain from matter-of-fact geopolitics.
