Can the need for access to warm seas or the lack of natural barriers explain, at least in part, the invasion of Ukraine? Can the geography of Eastern Europe shed light on Vladimir Putin's potential goals in the future? At least that is the view of Tim Marshall, a British journalist and author of the best-selling book "Prisoners of Geography". "Russia is a prime example of a nation that is a prisoner of its geography," he says. Far from being a determinist, the Briton nevertheless insists that history, current events and geography can together shed light on the roots of the war in Ukraine and the fact that, in his opinion, "any Russian leader would have done as Putin".
While some fear that the Kremlin's master will strike another country in Europe, Tim Marshall believes that "Europeans have shown themselves to be pathetically naive and weak over the past thirty years". In these conditions, he believes, "the scenario of an attack on a NATO country is becoming increasingly likely". In an interview with the French newspaper L'Express, the author also reveals the geographical areas that could become hot spots in the future. Starting with the South China Sea, Iran and even... space.
L"EXPRESS: In your book "Prisoners of Geography" you write that geography "closes" leaders, "giving them fewer choices and less room to maneuver" than we think. Did geography play a role in the outbreak of the war in Ukraine?
TIM MARSHALL: Russia is a prime example of a nation that is a prisoner of its geography, in the sense that geography will allow it to do one thing or prevent it from doing another. But I am not a determinist: that is not the only factor that played a role in the invasion of Ukraine. From a geographical perspective, in this case, Russia had two problems. First, its direct access to warm seas, which are part of the world's major sea routes, is limited. To get there, the Russians must either go through the Arctic or the Baltic Sea; areas that are frozen for part of the year, which include many NATO members nearby and provide access only to the North Sea. But access to the Black Sea is crucial for Russia. And the only warm-water port that Moscow had access to in the region was at Sevastopol, Crimea. If Ukraine moved too close to the West, Russia could lose access to this strategic point. The second geographical factor, no less important, is that the North European Plain, which stretches from France to the Ural Mountains and through Poland before entering Ukraine and Belarus, is a risk zone for the Russian power centers of St. Petersburg and Moscow. The lack of natural barriers, such as mountains or large rivers, makes Russia particularly vulnerable to invasions from the west. The Swedish Empire, France in 1815, the Germans in 1914 and then again in 1941, have all taken advantage of this throughout history. Constrained by this geography and influenced by its past, Russia has always sought to create buffer zones - Poland, Belarus or... Ukraine. Put it all together: these geographical weaknesses, this history, and Ukraine - whose natural resources such as wheat and lithium are highly coveted by the Russians - is moving towards the West. Russia was doomed to react. This in no way justifies the aggression suffered by Kiev or the war crimes committed by Moscow. But if you understand this, you understand how Putin managed to make many Russians believe that invading Ukraine was necessary.
L"EXPRESS: Listening to you, one would think that any Russian leader, whether his name is Vladimir Putin or not, would do this...
T. MARSHALL: Let me be clear: Vladimir Putin's fascist, racist and imperialist mentality is clearly something to be taken into account. For him, Moscow is the third Rome. He deeply believes that the Slavic soul is superior to other peoples, and he also believes in the territorial expansion achieved by his hero-idols Peter III and Catherine II. In other words, Putin wants to turn other Slavic peoples into colonies.
However, I am convinced that any other Russian leader would eventually invade Ukraine. If Russia had become a liberal democracy after the fall of the USSR, things would probably have been different. But the fact is that Russia has taken the path of nationalist dictatorship. In this respect, any Russian leader would have made the same choice as Putin. When he leaves, whether he falls out of a window or dies in his bed, another version of him will take over.
L"EXPRESS: "The countdown has begun before Vladimir Putin hits other European countries," British researcher Keir Giles of Chatham House told L'Express. How might Europe's geography affect the Kremlin's ambitions?
T. MARSHALL: I agree that Putin's Russia is a threat to European countries, especially if we let Ukraine lose this war. But in the face of that, Europeans have been woefully naive and weak for the past thirty years. We - including the UK - have mistaken this period of post-Cold War stability for normalcy. Frankly, I don't understand how it is possible to come to that conclusion when we have two thousand years of history that suggests otherwise. In the face of the Russian threat, however, Europe seems apathetic. The claim that "we will support Ukraine" will not be enough to ward off the danger. Under these conditions, the scenario of an attack on a NATO country is becoming increasingly likely. From here we have two areas to watch. You may have noticed that there are currently about 2,000 Russian soldiers, very strategically located in Transnistria, a region located on the border between Ukraine and Moldova. These troops could prove very useful in Moldova, especially in fomenting a revolutionary uprising to overthrow the government and replace it with a pro-Russian one. The other risk zone is the Baltic states. The Kaliningrad enclave, an area immediately adjacent to the Baltic Sea, is home to very effective Russian mechanized brigades. But only 48 kilometers of the Polish-Lithuanian border separates Kaliningrad from Belarus along the so-called "Suwalski Corridor". If Russian troops in Kaliningrad and Belarus cut off the corridor, then the Baltic states - which Putin considers, I repeat, colonies - would be cut off from the world. And if NATO were to collapse, which is entirely possible, would Portugal fight for Lithuania? Would France fight for Estonia? We can no longer be sure, especially since Trump is now undermining NATO Article 5. So Putin can really crush Lithuania or Poland in three days.
L"EXPRESS: You are very critical of Europe...
T. MARSHALL: I remember very well a speech given in 1991 by Jacques Poos, then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg. He said of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was on the brink of a major conflict: "This is Europe's time. This is not America's time." This is a way of saying that we Europeans would take on the challenge of defending the country if it were to plunge into war. Two years later we were crawling before the Americans to ask them to help us end this war that was taking place on our doorstep. Since then, we have regularly heard politicians like your President use such grandiose phrases as "strategic autonomy" and "common defense". But these are empty words. We cannot defend ourselves, that is the reality. If the Americans withdraw their dollars and stop paying for Ukraine, we are finished. We supply about 50% of Kiev's weapons. There is no scenario in which we could fill the gap left by the United States if they withdrew. The funny thing is that my own Prime Minister said that he was ready to send British peacekeeping troops to support Ukraine... But we have fewer troops today than we had in the Napoleonic Wars of 1815. To give you an idea, to deploy just 10,000 soldiers, it takes about 30,000 soldiers - 10,000 in preparation, 10,000 at the front, 10,000 in recovery. But we only have 76,000 in total. It will be difficult for Europe to provide Ukraine with more than 20,000-25,000 qualified soldiers. But it will take at least 800,000 men to defeat Russia. It is unbearable to think that every American president since Eisenhower has warned us. And yet we have all cut our budgets and allowed our defense industry to decline. Even Barack Obama ended up calling us "winners" in 2016. And here we are, in 2025, facing this new vulgar, belligerent and impatient president who sends his emissaries to Brussels and Munich to punch us in the face again and again, without provoking a constructive response.
L"EXPRESS: Is there still time to reverse the trend?
T. MARSHALL: We are undoubtedly hostages of our bad decisions. But if you look at what the geography of Europe has bequeathed, we live in one of the best regions in the world: we have plains, fantastic agricultural land, especially in France, and very good natural resources like rivers, mountains and coasts, which are factors in creating wealth. So we have this natural geographical advantage over other countries. Our total GDP is 10 times that of Russia, and our population is much larger. So if we make the right decisions, we will be strong enough to maintain strong democracies, ready to stand up to the dictatorships that are on our doorstep. But if we do not take advantage of these geographical advantages that have made us rich and if we make bad decisions, we will be eliminated one after another by our enemies. But to do that, we have to be honest with the voters: for example, we have to admit that given the current administration in the United States, we have to increase our taxes and tariffs. But what politician would say that?
L"EXPRESS: The war in Gaza is another hot spot on the globe... Can the geography of the Middle East shed light on this conflict?
T. MARSHALL: In any case, the West Bank plays a role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At its narrowest point, Israel is only 12 miles wide. Imagine a corridor from Tel Aviv to the West Bank. An artillery salvo from the West Bank, which faces Israel's coastal plain, would shut down Tel Aviv airport and cut the country in two. Your opinion of Israel doesn't matter. The geography of the West Bank means that Israel will never allow a properly armed Palestinian army, even if there were ever a Palestinian state.
L"EXPRESS: Which regions could be most at risk geopolitically in the future?
T. MARSHALL: I don't think China will invade Taiwan in the next few years, but it is likely to try to slowly crush it through small actions or even a low-level blockade. Whether or not the Americans will respond remains to be seen. But if they don't, Washington will give Beijing carte blanche to repeat its attacks over and over again until Taiwan surrenders. The other flashpoint, which I think is underrated, is the rest of the South China Sea. About eight different countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, of course, Brunei, and the Philippines all claim parts of the territory. But China claims almost all of that territory. Because of that, it has maritime disputes with many countries. That's why the Philippines recently granted the Americans additional rights, such as expanded access to military bases located on their territory, in addition to increased military cooperation. As with Taiwan, if the Chinese increase their small, low-intensity actions, which they certainly will, what will the Americans do? For some time now, the US has generally seemed to be losing influence in this part of the Pacific. It is unclear whether they will react decisively enough to seemingly minor incidents in the coming years.
L"EXPRESS: You don't mention Africa...
T. MARSHALL: The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has been going on for twenty years and other African countries are gradually joining it, partly because of issues with mining rights and copper. I fear that the situation will not stabilize. It is more likely that the situation will worsen. Especially since many countries like Ethiopia, Sudan and Chad are already in situations of civil war and instability. We need to see how this curve of instability extends into West Africa, to countries like Côte d'Ivoire. And, of course, in the Middle East, watch Iran. At some point this year, the situation between that country and Israel will be in the news again. But there are two factors that Israel will have to consider before engaging in a confrontation with Tehran.
L"EXPRESS: What are they?
T. MARSHALL: First, there is the question of its ability to fuel enough aircraft for a sustained campaign over such long distances. It is also possible that, if attacked, the Iranians could try to block the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which would have serious consequences for the price of oil and gas. Indeed, Israel would be under intense pressure from its neighbors and allies, including the United States. This is cause for thought before we engage in direct confrontation... We'll see what happens.
L"EXPRESS: To what extent are technological advances changing the traditional meaning of geography in modern conflicts?
T. MARSHALL: Technological advances may change the importance of certain areas, but geography will always matter. For example, most countries no longer care where the coal is. We are now in a lithium race. So what we are looking for has changed, but geography still matters in the competition for resources. The majority of the world's lithium reserves are actually still in Chile, Argentina and Bolivia. Similarly, a country can use the latest available technology to send a rocket, a drone or a plane, but it will still have to consult a map to find the location of the refueling points or nuclear facilities where certain rare resources are located...
L"EXPRESS: In your latest book "The Future of Geography" you examine the new "astropolitical reality". To what extent will space become a geopolitical issue?
T. MARSHALL: Space Race 2.0 reflects geopolitical tensions on Earth. The three main players are the United States, China, and Russia. The Americans lead a bloc of mostly democratic nations under the Artemis Accords, which France signed, while China cooperates with Russia, Iran, and North Korea in space. “Astropolitics,” like geopolitics, is based on geography. Space has radioactive regions to travel through, distant oceans, gravity highways, and lands full of resources, including the Moon. Satellite belts are becoming increasingly crowded, congested, and militarized. Many countries have declared space a “war zone.” Our near neighbor, the Moon, has large amounts of water ice at its south pole and deposits of many of the minerals we need for 21st-century technology. The profitability of mining the Moon has not been proven, but what great power would stand by and watch its competitors profit? That is why there is an urgent need to update the space treaties of the last century, which are out of step with modern technology and policies. We need agreements to better understand the situation in space, resolve conflicts, and rethink the idea of sharing the benefits that can be derived from resources.