This week we focused on primarily the news rendition of what "geopolitics" is. In that sense, we talked about rational actors, and if the state is always rational.

But we also focused in discussing geopolitics in the academic sense of the word, which (also) focuses on - and we primarily talked about - if a nation is destined to act or simply be a certain way just because of the geography it has.

Generally, the takeaway is that debating geopolitics equates to WHAT a nation does, WHY it does it, and WHO it benefits.

Implications for future actions of nations should also be taken into account, but that should only be done with an accurate source of information.

In the later portion of the "seminar", we went through a second aspect of debating geopolitics: The quality of the narratives that create an argument. We went on Twitter/X to understand what source we should believe, and if we are willing to make a narrative from said source, we focused mainly on the former.

Michele's Note: We honestly could've discussed the future implications of a nation more, but that's my bad.