Europe, Geopolitics and Strategy with Professor Sir Hew Strachan

Europe is the continent that gave birth to geopolitics. It is the idea that geography affects the conduct of international politics. The idea is not without controversy. But does a current of thought brought to prominence in the 20th century still have any relevance today given globalisation and technological advancement? What do the burning crises in the Southern Mediterranean, the Sahel, the Levant and Eastern Europe tell us about Europe, geopolitics and strategy? How does Europe understand geopolitics and strategy today? What are the flaws in Europe’s strategic thinking?
Prof. Sir Hew Strachan (FRSE FRhistS) is Chichele Professor of the History of War and a Fellow of All Souls College at the University of Oxford. He serves as an advisor to the Chief of the Defence Staff, UK, as well as a Trustee of the Imperial War Museum, a Commonwealth War Graves Commissioner and a member of the National Committee for the Centenary of the First World War and the Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He is also a Fellow of Corpus Christi College, University of Cambridge and a Visiting Professor at the University of Glasgow. He is a world leading authority on the history of the First World War. He is the author of many books and articles including The Direction of War: Contemporary Strategy in Historical Perspective (2013) and The First World War: A New Illustrated History (2003).
This was the closing lecture of the Autumn Lecture Series 2014: "The Future of European Geostrategy" jointly organised by the Institute for European Studies-VUB and the Egmont - Royal Institute for International Relations. The lecture was delivered at Castle Val Duchesse (Kasteel Hertoginnendal/Château Val Duchesse). To tweet about this lecture use the following hashtag: #EFSP14.

[@srdxxx]

It seems like the Mackinder world island model still has legs if you replace Russia with China and Germany with the EU. That doesn't make it valid (there doesn't seem to be enough geo in the original thesis) but does update it.

[@CM-bi6oy]

Perhaps rather than the Atlantic being a ‘divide’ it’s the bridge between Western Europe (ie the UK and France) and North America. Certainly it was this bloque that outlasted Germany in the First World War and, together with Russia defeated it again in the Second World War. Then this bloque prepared to face a potential onslaught from Russia that fortunately never came.

[@CM-bi6oy]

If the motivation for the World Wars and perhaps earlier struggles was economic rather than ideological then does that explain why there wasn’t a NATO-Warsaw Pact war? There was no economic motivation? What about all the proxy wars in the third world? No ideological motivation there either?

[@aon10003]

Britain was losing its World domination and was relegated from first Power to third Power status by ww1 and ww2. Hew Strachan might talk like Whitehall but he's seriously onesided.

[@Spaccaspecchi]

In what world did Britain have third power status in WWI? The Royal Fleet alone completely smashed the Tirpitz Plan (which, admittedly, had its faults), forcing the Reichsmarine to rely more heavily on U-boat campaigns after Jutland, which in turn brought the Americans into the war. Still without access to the Atlantic, the British blockade prevented German intervention and thus enabled two million American soldiers to cross to France. No third power would have ever been able to contain the arguably most potent military at that time in a way Britain did.
I'm German, btw, just in case anyone wants to accuse me of a British bias ;)