Friends, foes, and the reproduction of U.S. latitudinal geostrategy

This essay proposes the perspective of latitudinal geostrategy as a baseline of spatial orientations against which change and continuity in U.S. geostrategy can be assessed. Latitudinalism is an imaginative geography, envisioning the projection of U.S. power and influence into Eurasia. However, allies, adversaries, and markets build their own geostrategies on expectations of such U.S. spatial behavior. This increases the cost of radical deviations for all sides. Hence, even alternative, longitudinal discourses about the “Western Hemisphere” tend to reproduce latitudinal justifications and interactions. The article traces these spatial orientations in the works of major U.S. geostrategists and their Eurasian challengers—most notably, Carl Schmitt and his Russian successors—through the twentieth century. It then sketches how U.S. latitudinal interactions and discourses in the Middle East, Europe, and East Asia provided a baseline of relative continuity in spatial orientations amid the disruptions of President Trump’s second term until early 2026.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Comparative Strategy
Published
2026-11-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/01495933.2026.2739581
Primary Topic
International Relations and Foreign Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Friends, foes, and the reproduction of U.S. latitudinal geostrategy

Carsten Nickel
1 links
Comparative Strategy
International Relations and Foreign Policy
article

Friends, foes, and the reproduction of U.S. latitudinal geostrategy

Carsten Nickel
article en

Abstract

This essay proposes the perspective of latitudinal geostrategy as a baseline of spatial orientations against which change and continuity in U.S. geostrategy can be assessed. Latitudinalism is an imaginative geography, envisioning the projection of U.S. power and influence into Eurasia. However, allies, adversaries, and markets build their own geostrategies on expectations of such U.S. spatial behavior. This increases the cost of radical deviations for all sides. Hence, even alternative, longitudinal discourses about the “Western Hemisphere” tend to reproduce latitudinal justifications and interactions. The article traces these spatial orientations in the works of major U.S. geostrategists and their Eurasian challengers—most notably, Carl Schmitt and his Russian successors—through the twentieth century. It then sketches how U.S. latitudinal interactions and discourses in the Middle East, Europe, and East Asia provided a baseline of relative continuity in spatial orientations amid the disruptions of President Trump’s second term until early 2026.

Comparative Strategy
Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
International Relations and Foreign Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon