As conflicts rage from Ukraine to the Middle East and superpower tensions simmer between the United States and China, one might be tempted to reach back in time for a lens to make sense of it all. And according to a growing chorus of analysts, a geopolitical theory from over a century ago may still hold remarkable relevance today.

In 1904, British geographer Halford Mackinder proposed that the key to global domination lay not in the seas or colonies, but in the vast landmass of Eurasia. He divided it into a mineral-rich “heartland” (encompassing Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia), a populous “periphery” (including Western Europe, the Middle East, China, and India), and outer “islands” like Britain, Japan, and the Americas.

His theory posited that whoever controlled the heartland would dominate the periphery—and ultimately the world. Though long debated, the model continues to offer insight into modern geopolitical power plays, from the Russian invasion of Ukraine to China’s strategic assertiveness in the South China Sea.

The Rimland Counterpoint

Mackinder’s ideas were later challenged by Nicholas Spykman, who argued that control of the “rimland”—the populated coastal edges of Eurasia—was far more critical. His view profoundly shaped U.S. Cold War foreign policy, underpinning strategies like the Marshall Plan, the formation of NATO, and military interventions in Korea and Vietnam.

Today, that framework still echoes in American alliances from Europe to East Asia, built to contain rising powers seeking regional dominance.

The ‘Axis of Upheaval’

A new constellation of geopolitical forces has reignited interest in these theories. Analysts Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Richard Fontaine describe an emerging “Axis of Upheaval”—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Three of the four are nuclear powers; the fourth, Iran, is edging closer.

What binds them is not proximity but shared hostility toward American influence, authoritarian governance, and expansionist ambitions. Russia seeks to redraw the heartland by reclaiming Ukraine. China aims to extend its rimland reach by asserting control over Taiwan and dominating maritime Asia.

The Ukraine war has catalyzed this alliance. North Korea and Iran are supplying arms to Moscow. China, while more discreet, has provided economic and diplomatic support to the Kremlin. In return, Russia offers military aid to its partners. Together, they form a bloc capable of projecting influence across vast stretches of Eurasia.

U.S. Strategy and the Risk of a Bifurcated World

From Washington’s perspective, this evolving axis presents a strategic dilemma. The U.S. has responded by reinforcing a counter-network of alliances—expanding NATO, deepening ties with Japan, South Korea, India, and Australia, and strengthening security partnerships across the Indo-Pacific.

But from Beijing’s vantage point, such moves resemble encirclement—a deliberate attempt to dominate the rimland and isolate the heartland.

The stakes in Ukraine thus extend far beyond Europe. A Russian victory would embolden the axis. A Ukrainian standstill or success could reaffirm Western resolve.

A New Cold War or a Broken Model?

Dividing the world into competing blocs, however, comes at a steep cost. Global cooperation weakens, defense budgets rise, and shared challenges—like climate change—go unaddressed. A global economy rooted in trade and interdependence begins to fracture.

Could this dynamic be broken? Some suggest prying China or Iran away from the axis. During the Cold War, the U.S. successfully split China from the Soviet Union. But today’s conditions are different.

President Xi Jinping remains committed to reunifying Taiwan, and any aggressive U.S. economic sanctions risk blowback for American consumers. Former diplomat Philip Reeker notes that Washington is unlikely to take that risk. Others see hope in Iran, where the eventual departure of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei could present an opening—but that outcome is far from assured.

Rebuilding the Rules-Based Order

In the meantime, the most viable path forward for the U.S. may be to reinvest in the global rules-based order it once championed. That means reinforcing defense alliances but also restoring credibility—offering rimland states sustainable alternatives to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, avoiding hypocrisy in foreign policy, and exercising restraint in hegemonic behavior.

Whether the U.S. chooses that path may depend less on old geopolitical maps and more on the outcome of its own domestic crossroads: the 2024 presidential election, where voters must choose between continuity under Democratic candidate Kamala Harris or the return of Donald Trump and his brand of muscular nationalism.

By Staff Writer, Courtesy of Forbes | October 14, 2024 | Edited for WTFwire.com
Source: Reuters