地缘军事影响力:评价体系、空间演化与形成路径

Geomilitary Powers:Evaluation Framework,Spatial Evolution,and Configuration Pathways

下载PDF

导出

摘要当前大国博弈和地区冲突的持续蔓延使得军事因素日益成为影响地缘关系和国际博弈的重要变量,深入探析地缘军事影响力的空间态势和形成路径对军事资源的合理配置具有重要意义。文章采用指标体系构建、标准差椭圆和定性比较分析等方法,对地缘军事影响力进行定量测度,结果表明:1)基于军事实力、军事合作和军事威慑这3个维度构建评价指标体系,将其作为世界各国地缘军事影响力的分析框架,具有较强的解释力。2)全球地缘军事影响力呈现以“一超多强”的稳定格局,美国始终是最具地缘军事影响力的国家,中国和印度呈现明显的上升态势,俄罗斯和英国呈现下降态势。各国地缘军事影响力的动态消长促使其重心呈现向东南方向移动的态势,中国成为地缘军事影响力重心移动最主要的动力。3)地缘军事影响力的形成路径可划分为军事实力与军事合作协同型路径、军事合作引领型路径和综合型路径,多条件综合组态效应构成强大的地缘军事影响力,在核心条件缺失和仅辅助条件存在的状态下均难以产生地缘军事影响力。 The persistent escalation of great power rivalries and regional conflicts has elevated military factors as increasingly critical variables that shape geopolitical relations and international power dynamics.Conducting an in-depth analysis of the spatial dynamics and formation pathways of geopolitical military influence is therefore of paramount importance for optimizing the allocation of military resources.Building upon the identified gaps in the existing literature on geopolitical military influence,this study employed an index system construction approach that integrated methodologies such as standard deviational ellipse analysis and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis.A preliminary evaluation framework for assessing geopolitical military influence was developed,and its spatial evolution patterns and multidimensional formation mechanisms were examined.The findings revealed the following:(1)Military capability—represented by military financing,personnel strength,and defense industrial production—constitutes the foundational prerequisite for the generation of geopolitical military influence.Military cooperation—encompassing defense collaboration,joint military exercises,and international arms trade—enables the expansion and outward projection of such influence through diverse operational modalities.Military deterrence mechanisms—including nuclear,air-based,and sea-based deterrence—serve as critical manifestations of a nation's strategic acumen and technological prowess,collectively projecting coercive power to deter adversarial states.(2)The global geomilitary landscape demonstrates a stable pattern of"one superpower,many strong powers,"with the United States consistently maintaining its position as the most geopolitically influential military power.Concurrently,China and India exhibit significant upward trajectories,whereas Russia and the United Kingdom display declining trends.The dynamic shifts in national geomilitary powers have prompted a southeastward shift in the global power center,with China emerging as the principal driver of this movement.(3)The pathways to geomilitary power can be categorized into three types:synergistic pathways of military strength and cooperation,military cooperation-led pathways,and comprehensive pathways.The multicondition configurational effects form a robust geomilitary power that cannot be achieved in the absence of core conditions or the presence of only auxiliary conditions.The evolutionary trajectory of a nation's geopolitical military influence progresses through distinct developmental stages—beginning with a military cooperation-led formation pathway,transitioning to a synergistic pathway combining military capability and cooperation,and ultimately ascending toward an integrated pathway.This escalating evolution maps the developmental trajectory through which states enhance their comprehensive national power and geopolitical military influence.This article's in-depth exploration of geopolitical and geomilitary power research not only enhances our understanding of the dynamic evolution of geomilitary power dynamics among different countries but also significantly enriches and expands the research scope of geopolitics and geopolitical military studies.This provides a crucial perspective for comprehending the transformation of the global geopolitical landscape.

作者郭卫东徐伟杜德斌李祺祥 Guo Weidong;Xu Wei;Du Debin;Li Qixiang(Institute of National Security and Development Studies,Guangdong University of Finance and Economics,Guangzhou 510320,China;School of Geographic Sciences,East China Normal University,Shanghai 200241,China;Center for World Geography and Geo-Strategic Studies,East China Normal University,Shanghai 200062,China;Institute for Global Innovation and Development,East China Normal University,Shanghai 200062,China;Department of Geography,University of Lethbridge,Lethbridge T1K3M4,Canada;The Center for Modern Chinese City Studies,East China Normal University,Shanghai 200062,China)