Modern geopolitical analysis considers that world politics is controlled by nations trying to secure more resources for their consumption and/or wealth. The basic assumption is that nations live in a limited geography with limited resources, and as their needs grow they require more resources. A typical geopolitical analyst would show you a map and start drawing lines to explain the movement and transfer of resources between nations. Geopolitical analysts tend to refer to the world map as “the Grand chessboard” on which some chess pieces live and interact according to specific rules. Modern geopolitical analysis is similar to chess game analysis. Pieces on the board move to strategic positions to occupy critical square and impose or counter threats. Wars are piece exchanges accompanied with strategic space exchanges and a change in strategic dominance on the chessboard.
This flat, or two dimensional, model for understanding world events is oversimplified, and it is unable to explain some of the most important events in current times as well as in history. For example, any mainstream geopolitical analyst can explain the strategic national interests of the United States and justify all actions by the US administration in line with these national interests. However, to see how fake this analysis is, try asking the same geopolitical analyst “why does the US nation invest trillions of dollars on wars and arms instead of solving the poverty, health, education, or prison population problems in the US” or any similar question about the real problems of the United states as a nation.
The required two dimensions.
To get a better understanding of world events, we need to recognize that nations are ruled by persons, real persons, who have their own emotions, needs, loyalties, and characteristics. The needs of the rulers might or might not match the needs of the nation. Some rulers might have a certain vision for their rule. Some rulers might have personal connections, loyalties, agendas, or allegiances. Some rulers might have their own special psychological or physical motives. Besides, in our complex societies, the rulers cannot be a single person. The rulers tend to be a group of groups of people, each group has its own characteristics, and the ruling structure and decision making is affected by the ruling groups and their interactions, and by the persons in these groups and their interactions. Therefore, the anatomy of the ruling structure must be considered in every serious attempt to understand world events. We consider the ruling structures to be the third dimension in any attempt to understand world events.
With the third dimension, we can easily understand some events that were inexplicable using traditional geopolitical analysis. The tough question about “Why a certain government does not do the best for the majority of their people” can be answered by analyzing the personality and the relationship of the ruling structure in the nation in question. In the US, for example, we will find that the ruling structure is not loyal to the majority of the people, but to the majority of funding providers. Therefore, the policies and decisions of the ruling structure in the US serves the interests of their funding masters, regardless of the interests of the nation.
The fourth dimension needed to understand world events is time. People and conditions change over time, so the previous analysis of any situation might not be applicable at a later time, and needs to adapt to the changes. Nations that formed strong alliances for years based on their mutual benefits and decision of their ruling structures might become enemies over time without any change in the ruling structures or in the two dimensional geopolitical scene. Such changes might be direct results of the effect of time on people and conditions.
The 4D PI method
Induction is a recognized scientific reasoning method. It is used by scientists to generate probably correct theories about natural events. Induction is not certain by definition, and it is prone to many biases, especially confirmation bias. Even though, induction can be used to get a better understanding of world events than provided by the fake or oversimplified geopolitical analysis.
The 4D PI methodology works as follows:
- Fix the point in time: Focus on the events in their time, and slightly before that time. What happens after the event might be affected by the fourth dimension, time, so it does not count in understanding what happened at the time of the event.
- List and analyze the ruling structures: Especially their personalities, their motives, their loyalties, their needs, and their personal agendas. Many of this information can be available in the public statements of these people, and in the factual record of their rise to power.
- Put the ruling structures on the map, and add the capabilities and needs of the nations they represent.
- Try to induce multiple theories about the event. Then try to validate each theory against the factual record at the specific point in time you fixed. Neglect all theories that have a clear contradiction with real events, and include all theories that do not contradict with the events at the time.
4D PI analysts use this method to describe real world events using nature-conforming theories. As any 4D PI theory would include facts or assumptions about people and power structures working together to further a certain agenda, they might be dismissed or ridiculed by mainstream geo-analysts as “outrageous conspiracy theories”. This tends to be inevitable no matter how sound and realistic the 4D PI theory is.
The value of 4D PI
- 4D PI analysis is more specific than geopolitics: 4D PI focuses on specific events happening in a certain time by specific actors, while geopolitical analysis uses generalized theories.
- 4D PI produces a wider spectrum of theories: Although 4D PI is more specific, the outcome of the analysis includes multiple theories and their validation. Geopolitical analysis produces theories that focus on resources and only, without taking into consideration other potential factors.
- 4D PI is more factual than Geopolitical analysis, because it includes a mechanism to generate theories and validate them for every event. Geopolitical analysis lacks the practice of validating its theories. In fact, sometimes geopolitical theories are so abstract that they cannot be validated against the factual record of events.
- The main assumption of geopolitics is oversimplified in the best case, which makes geopolitical theories less nature-conforming than 4D PI theories.
The understanding of the ruling structure when an event happens is far more important than the two dimensional resource map used by traditional geopolitical analysis. Any serious attempt to understand an event should start by fixing the point in time of the event, and considering all factors at this point, then trying to analyze the ruling structures of the active parts in the event at that point in time. After forming a clear picture about the agendas of the persons and groups that form the ruling structures of the nations affected by the event at the time, other factors can be considered.
After getting a four dimensional understanding of a certain world event, traditional geopolitical analysis would look like pure entertainment, more like a commentary on a football match than a commentary on a real world event.