“The rounding of borders”: why all states are striving for it
Geometrically straight lines can be seen on the political map of the world, especially in Africa – a consequence of the earlier colonial division of the continent. But also in other parts of the world, the borders between the countries usually look quite harmonious. The reason for this is that kings and presidents have tried for centuries to round the boundaries of their dominions.
From Caesar to Bismarck
The state borders to which we have become so accustomed have been created through diplomacy, military action and, above all, the conclusion of peace treaties.
The Greco-Roman historian Plutarch was one of the first to speak of the “rounding of borders” as a foreign policy goal of a state. In his biography of Julius Caesar, the ancient author describes the military plans of the general after the war with the Parthians that he had planned:
“After he had conquered them, he was to pass through Hyrcania, round the Caspian Sea, cross the Caucasus Mountains, invade Scythia, attack the peoples neighboring with the Germans, invade Germany itself, return to Rome through Gaul, circumambush the borders of the Roman state, drive them apart in all directions as far as the ocean.
Thus, Caesar devised a grandiose plan for expansion abroad. The phrase “rounding the boundaries” was not used by Plutarch by chance. A circle is a geometric figure with maximum area and minimum circumference. By “rounding off” its borders, the state therefore hopes to have a maximum of resources – especially on land. Also, it’s much easier to defend “rounded” borders, as it requires a less extensive line of defense. In practice, a variant of “rounding” is to bring the territory of the country closer to natural boundaries – mountains, seas and rivers. From a military point of view, this is also important for defense.
Although Caesar was unable to realize this plan, other Roman rulers followed similar principles and eventually established the northern borders of the empire along the Danube. In modern times, when nation-states developed in Europe, kings tried to eliminate the “patchwork” of land ownership typical of feudal times and “close” the borders of their lands. All types of “outposts”, enclaves, and semi-enclaves have been eliminated. This was especially characteristic of the foreign policy of the strongest European “land” powers – France, Prussia and later Germany.
Liszt’s Theory
The German economist of the 19th century, Daniel Friedrich List, the author of the book “The National System of Political Economy”, was a theorist of the “rounding of borders”. In it, he formulated ideas of “geopolitical economy”. List argued that only a nation-state with “rounded” borders, which also has control over the estuaries and the exits of the sea, can make full use of its productive forces.
“A nation in its normal state has its own language and literature, an extensive and well-rounded territory, endowed with a multitude of natural material sources of wealth and a considerable population,” wrote Friedrich List.
On the basis of these ideas, the economist considered the annexation of Denmark and the Netherlands to Germany (the German Union) necessary.
It is easy to see that in the 20th century, Liszt’s ideas found a direct continuation in Hitler’s concept of the “living space for the German nation”. After the tragedy of World War II, humanity rejected theories that justified waging wars of aggression over territories.
“Circumnavigating the borders of Russia
In Tsarist Russia, too, the “rounding of borders” was recognized as a legitimate foreign policy goal. Thus, when describing the deeds of Prince Grigory Potemkin, the writer Vasily Ogarkov mentioned that the “rounding of the borders” saved the state from political unrest and raids by “predatory tribes” and ensured “better development of the country’s productive forces.”
In fact, Catherine II’s century is generally considered to be the period of Russia’s most active foreign expansion. However, at the court of the empress, the attitude towards territorial expansion was not so clear-cut. In 1763, Catherine II argued that there was no need to strive for an expansion of our empire.
However, the “hawks” in St. Petersburg actively advocated the geostrategic doctrine of “natural borders.” A few years before the partition of Poland, the vice-president of the Military Collegium Zakhar Chernyshev proposed his plan of action for this country. He justified the necessity of annexing the Polish territories by the fact that the borders of Russia should run along natural borders – the western Dvina and the Dnieper. It would increase the country’s defense capability.
“Natural fortifications and the enclosing of the borders with the rivers of the empire are necessary and useful,” wrote the author of the project.
Catherine the Great rejected the Chernyshev project, but during her reign she annexed vast lands that had been confiscated by the Commonwealth of Poland, the Crimean Khanate, and the Ottoman Empire. Many subsequent Russian tsars and leaders of the Soviet Union followed the example of the “Tsarina’s mother”. It is interesting to note that in 1945-1991, the western and southern borders of the USSR remotely resembled a circular arc in which the Azov and Caspian Seas were “wedged”.
Borders and conflicts
Unfortunately, purely geographical and aesthetic principles of demarcating state and administrative borders are increasingly leading to international conflicts. The practice of the Bolsheviks is indicative of the fact that when determining the borders of the republics within the USSR, the territories were rounded down in favor of one or another nation and at the expense of the other. Those who made such decisions were supported by the local party elites. As long as all republics remained part of a single state, internal borders could be ignored. However, as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed, the shortcomings of territorial division “backfired.”
The history of South Ossetia is a prime example of the excessive “rounding” of borders. The Ossetian people have long settled on both sides of the Caucasus Mountains. After the revolution, South Ossetia retreated to North Ossetia and the RSFSR for ethnic reasons. However, in 1922, the Soviet authorities left the Autonomous Region of South Ossetia as part of the Georgian SSR, which thus received a “natural” border along the Caucasus chain. In 1991, South Ossetia seceded from Georgia, leading to an armed conflict. The consequences of this conflict are still not fully understood, as are a number of other inter-ethnic conflicts in the former Soviet Union.