Daily Times

Although modern technology now allows bending the rules of geography, it still remains crucial to understand why nations have turned out the way they are today

The geographical position of the United States is unique in that it makes the country practically invulnerable to any invading army

Societies are shaped by the land upon which they exist. Natural resources and geographic features can provide safety and prosperity, or leave a country’s citizens exposed and struggling. Geography has been a determining factor in the war human beings fight, as well as in the speed of the economic development. Although modern technology now allows bending the rules of geography, it still remains crucial to understand why nations have turned out the way they are today.

There’s no denying the fact that Russia is enormous. Covering a sprawling six million square miles, and containing 11 different time zones, Russia is by far the world’s biggest country. So, what keeps Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, tossing and turning at night? It’s one particular stretch of land that somewhat resembles a slice of pizza. Beginning in Poland, this particular pizza-slice-shaped wedge extends southeast to the foot of the Ural Mountain range, and northeast to Russia’s capital city of Moscow. What keeps Putin particularly worried is that this area of land is part of what’s called the North European Plain, which stretches from France across Belgium, the Netherlands, Northern Germany, Poland, and ends at the Russian Urals.

As the name suggests, this area is flat, and makes the European gateway to Russia vulnerable and difficult to defend. Any country within the North European Plain could conceivably send an army across the flat lands and directly into Moscow. As Putin knows all too well, this is exactly what has happened to Russia throughout its history, and during both world wars. This is the path the Germans took in their military campaigns. But that’s not all.

As the name suggests, this area is flat, and makes the European gateway to Russia vulnerable and difficult to defend. Any country within the North European Plain could conceivably send an army across the flat lands and directly into Moscow

Since 1812, invaders from the Northern European Plain have attacked Russia an average of once every 33 years! For generations now, Russia’s strategy for neutralising the threat from the North European Plain has been to control Poland, and all the Baltic States that lie between Poland and Russia, which includes Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Belarus. These are the nations that make up the meat of that pizza slice, so to speak. While the wedge stretches 2,000 miles (ca. 3,219 kilometres), from north to south at its easternmost section, it’s only 300 miles (ca. 483 kilometres) wide around Poland and the Baltic states. If Russia can station a strong defensive front here, it can more easily hold off potential Western invaders. Unfortunately, this means the Baltic States are likely to continue having a rough go of it.

Moreover, China’s fears of Indian invasion and water shortages make it keep its grip on Tibet. There are regular, though always shocking, acts of Tibetan monks setting themselves on fire to protest the Chinese oppression. In 2008, 21 Tibetans died after protests turned especially violent. There’s been no shortage of humanitarian pleas calling for an end to the occupation of Tibet. So why does China refuse to let go of Tibet? The answer to this question lies just west of Tibet: India.

China and India are far and away the two most populous countries on the planet, so there’s tension over how ugly any major conflict between them could become. It is perhaps fortunate there is a natural buffer zone between these two world powers in the form of the Himalayan Mountains, which run along the western border of China. But this is unfortunate for Tibet, since its smack dab in the middle of this buffer zone. Tibet’s homeland is the Tibetan Plateau, which is right next to the Himalayas, on China’s side of the divide. So, in the theoretical event of India sending an invading army over the Himalayas, they could occupy the Tibetan Plateau and have a commanding position, looking down upon mainland China, from which they could launch their attack. This is China’s primary strategic reason for occupying Tibet. If they don’t control it, they’re leaving the door open for India to take it, and thereby leaving themselves extremely vulnerable.

However, there is another motive behind China’s actions: water. Tibet has long held the nickname ‘China’s water tower’, since three of China’s main rivers-the Mekong, the Yellow River and the Yangtze-all have their sources in Tibet. So, not only would India have a superior offensive position in Tibet, if India occupied this area, it could also cut off China’s main water supply. As far as China is concerned, whether India would ever want to deprive China of water is irrelevant. The fact is that they could, and this is enough of a threat to China’s prosperity for them to continue occupying Tibet.

Also, the United States has few concerns about traditional invasions. The geographical position of the United States is unique in that it makes the country practically invulnerable to any invading army. Its only neighbours are Canada and Mexico, and they’re not just friendly they’re also big enough that any invading army attempting to reach the United States by going through these countries would have to establish impossibly long supply lines. Perhaps the best protection the United States have working in its favour are the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans, which border the country’s west and east coasts, respectively. This effectively cuts off the east, and the west from attacks, since any invading force would have to contend with an entire, volatile ocean before even reaching its target.

As for the state-of-the-art security system, well, how do 100,000,000 loaded guns sound? The United States’ lenient gun laws have resulted in every small town having the potential to take up arms, and immediately defend itself from invasion without any help from the federal government. This is a country with the right to bear arms written into its social fabric, so guns are within easy reach for millions of Americans. Any invading force would have a new set of armed civilians in every Springfield and Sunnydale they come across.

Due to the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, Europe has also hugely contributed to the modern world, for better or for worse. This isn’t just happenstance; it’s due in large part to Europe’s temperate climate, generous rainfall, and fertile soil, all of which helped build thriving societies. Due to geography, however, some areas of Europe have thrived more than others. In 2012, when the Eurozone crisis was at its peak, nasty stereotypes began appearing in German media with increasing frequency, in attempts to explain why some regions of Europe were experiencing such a severe economic downturn. In particular, these generalisations portrayed northern Europeans as industrious hard workers, and southern Europeans as a bunch of lazy slackers. But rather than being attributable to work ethic, the true reason for the struggles of some southern European countries lies in geography.

The same Northern European Plain that haunts Russia has provided France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands with fertile soil and a wealth of productive crops. As a result, they’re the nations associated with hard work and money. And with a surplus of crops and goods to trade, northern Europe became home to bustling cities of commerce and major urban hubs. In contrast, countries in southern Europe have far less arable land. Greece, for example, doesn’t have enough fertile land to be a major agricultural exporter, and this also means that the country can only develop a small handful of those major cities of commerce that are so abundant in the north. It’s in these cities, like London and Hamburg, where you’ll find the highly educated and skilled workers that drive forward modern economies. Unfortunately, for southern European nations like Greece, geography still plays a major factor in their well-being and political future.

The relationship Africa has with its oceans and waterways is a complex and frustrating one, and this isn’t just as a result of its vast deserts. Africa is home to some of the world’s most stunning beaches and coastlines, as well as legendary rivers. However, African countries have been dealt with a difficult hand when it comes to being able to use these waterways for commercial gain.

For starters, Africa’s picture-perfect coastline is all but useless when it comes to setting up harbours. Unlike much of the jagged coastlines found along Europe and the United States, where the ocean sharply declines into deep waters that are perfect for docking boats, Africa’s shoreline is mostly smooth and shallow. This makes it impossible for cargo ships to load, and unload goods for importing and exporting.

While that remains a problem, human ingenuity is starting to find a way around Africa’s problematic geography. Tanzania and Angola, for instance, have formed partnerships with China to start creating man-made deep-water harbours. In Tanzania, they’re using sheer brute force to expand the port of Bagamoyo so that it will eventually be able to load and unload 20 million containers of cargo each year, making it Africa’s biggest port. But Africa’s challenges don’t end with the coastline.

Moving inland, Africa’s rivers pose another geographical obstacle that has hindered trade. The Zambezi River is one of the continent’s longest and most spectacular rivers. Its 1,600-mile waterway runs through six countries and is punctuated with white-water rapids and breath-taking waterfalls, such as the Victoria Falls. These stunning features may be great for adventurers, but they severely limit the river’s usefulness for transportation. Simply put, cargo ships and waterfalls don’t mix. The impracticality of Africa’s rivers as useful trade routes have made both trade and contact between the continent’s different regions very limited. This has, in turn, significantly hindered economic development across the continent and prevented major trade routes from forming.

The writer is a biotechnologist and a columnist