In 1904, Sir Halford J. Mackinder, a British geographer and one of the founders of classical geopolitics, introduced a revolutionary framework for understanding global power dynamics. His theory divided the world into three regions: the pivot area, which includes northeastern and central Eurasia, the inner crescent of surrounding territories such as the rest of Eurasia and North Africa, and the outer crescent, which includes the world’s oceanic countries like Britain and the United States.
At the core of Mackinder’s framework lay the idea that whoever controls the pivot area, also known as the Heartland, holds the key to dominating global geopolitics. This landmass, shielded from naval attacks due to its remoteness, offers both high mobility and immense resources. Any power able to organize and militarize the Heartland could threaten neighboring regions and potentially the world. Over a century later, Mackinder’s theory still resonates, particularly in the context of the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, which could reshape the global geopolitical order.
Mackinder’s Geopolitical Vision: The Heartland and Its Importance
Mackinder’s Heartland theory hinges on geographical determinism. He argued that the key to global dominance lies in controlling the vast, resource-rich region stretching from Eastern Europe to Siberia, an area he called the Heartland. This region is immune from naval invasion, thanks to its rivers draining into landlocked seas or the barely navigable Arctic Ocean. The Heartland’s flat, expansive steppes offer unparalleled mobility, historically allowing horsemen and later armies to move swiftly across the terrain.
Historically, the Heartland’s first significant expansionist power was the Mongol Empire, which, in the 13th century, forged the largest contiguous land empire in history. The Mongols demonstrated the potential of the Heartland by using its geographical advantages to conquer vast swaths of Eurasia. Mackinder argued that future powers controlling this region could do the same, and the theory found its most modern manifestation in the Russian Empire and its successor, the Soviet Union.
Mackinder’s fears were not solely theoretical. He highlighted the Heartland’s immense economic potential, noting its capacity for growing wheat, mining ores, and extracting fuel. The region’s resources could support a vast, industrialized military force capable of threatening neighboring powers on all sides. During the 20th century, this potential was realized by the Soviet Union, which emerged from the ashes of the Russian Empire to become a superpower, largely due to its control over the Heartland.
Eastern Europe: The Key to Controlling the Heartland
Mackinder identified Eastern Europe as the gateway to the Heartland. In his view, controlling this region would enable a power to dominate the Heartland and, by extension, the world. Throughout history, Eastern Europe has been the battleground for powers seeking to expand their influence into the Heartland. The Mongols, for example, advanced as far west as the Danube River, forcing local states to either resist or succumb to their might. Similarly, the Russian Empire expanded deep into Eastern Europe, occupying territories such as Poland, Finland, and Romania.
The geopolitical importance of Eastern Europe was not lost on the great powers of the early 20th century. During World War I, Germany sought to control this region to gain access to the economic and manpower resources of the Heartland. Mackinder warned that such a move could lead to world domination, particularly if Germany formed an alliance with Russia. His warning proved prescient, as Nazi Germany, driven by its ideology of expansion and “living space,” eventually invaded the Soviet Union in an attempt to control the resources of the East European plains.
Mackinder’s theories were vindicated again during the Cold War when the Soviet Union used its control of Eastern Europe as a buffer zone to protect the Heartland. After World War II, the Soviets extended their influence as far west as the Danube River and Berlin, consolidating their hold on Eastern Europe and, by extension, their dominance of the Heartland.
Russo-Ukrainian War: A Modern Struggle for the Heartland
In the 21st century, Mackinder’s Heartland theory finds renewed relevance in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, followed by its full-scale attack in 2022, is not merely a land grab; it is an attempt to secure control over the critical resources and strategic advantages that Ukraine offers as a part of Eastern Europe. By absorbing Ukraine, Russia aims to bolster its manpower, resources, and strategic depth, strengthening its position in the Heartland and preparing for further expansion.
Ukraine holds significant economic and strategic value. It is one of the world’s largest exporters of agricultural products, including wheat and sunflower oil. Its rich mineral and energy resources make it a prize for any power seeking to dominate the region. Historically, Ukraine’s resources have been crucial for the Soviet Union’s industrial development, and Russia’s current attempts to annex these territories reflect a desire to reclaim this economic potential.
Furthermore, Ukraine’s geographic location makes it a critical buffer between Russia and NATO member states. If Russia succeeds in subjugating Ukraine, it will effectively eliminate any remaining buffer zone between the Heartland and Western Europe, bringing Russian power to the doorstep of NATO. This scenario has prompted countries like Poland, Lithuania, and Finland to bolster their defenses in anticipation of further Russian aggression.
Russia’s Expansion and Mackinder’s Oversight
One of the critical flaws in Mackinder’s theory, exposed by the Russo-Ukrainian war, is his assumption that the lands between the Black and Baltic Seas were inherently Russian. In reality, these territories were only occupied by Russia, not naturally Russian. Mackinder’s view that Russia was the heir to the medieval Kyivan Rus’ state ignored the fact that Muscovy, the predecessor of the Russian Empire, developed under the influence of the Mongol Empire, with vastly different political and military institutions than Kyivan Rus’.
The legacy of Kyivan Rus’ was actually preserved in the western principalities, which eventually formed the Kingdom of Ruthenia. This kingdom, along with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, inherited the legal and administrative traditions of Kyivan Rus’, while Muscovy adopted a more despotic form of governance. Over time, Muscovy expanded its influence westward, subjugating the lands of modern-day Ukraine and adopting the name “Russian Empire” to legitimize its rule.
By the 18th century, Muscovy had conquered much of the territory between the Baltic and Black Seas. After World War I, several Eastern European states, including Poland and the Baltic nations, regained their independence, but Ukraine’s bid for sovereignty was ultimately thwarted by the Russian Bolsheviks. Nevertheless, with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine and other Eastern European nations finally achieved full independence, though the shadow of Russian dominance lingered.
Russo-Ukrainian War: Preventing a New Global Conflict
The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war has revived Mackinder’s warnings about the dangers posed by a powerful Heartland. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a clear attempt to expand its influence over Eastern Europe and, by extension, secure control over the Heartland. If Moscow is allowed to seize Ukraine, it will not only gain access to valuable resources and manpower but also position itself to threaten NATO and the broader European continent.
Furthermore, the occupation of Ukraine would enable Russia to replenish its military and labor force. Historically, Ukrainians played a crucial role in expanding the Russian Empire, and their contributions to the Soviet military were instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany during World War II. Absorbing Ukraine once again would provide Russia with millions of additional soldiers and workers, strengthening its ability to project power beyond its borders.
Russia’s aggressive expansionism is not limited to Ukraine. Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Moscow has sought to extend its influence across Eastern Europe and the wider world. The loss of Ukraine would leave NATO and the West vulnerable to further Russian advances, potentially leading to a new global conflict reminiscent of the world wars that Mackinder warned against.
Geopolitical Implications: A New Era of Geostrategic Alliances
The Russo-Ukrainian war has also underscored the importance of alliances in shaping global geopolitics. Just as Mackinder warned of a potential alliance between Germany and Russia in 1904, modern-day Russia has formed partnerships with other authoritarian powers, including China and Iran. This alignment of like-minded autocracies poses a significant threat to the post-Cold War world order.
China’s “no limits” partnership with Russia, combined with Iran’s military cooperation, has drawn comparisons to the Tripartite Pact of the 1940s, which united Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy. Together, these powers are challenging the Western-led liberal international order, threatening the stability of regions from Eastern Europe to the Middle East and East Asia. Should Russia succeed in its objectives in Ukraine, it could embolden other autocratic regimes to pursue similar expansionist ambitions, setting the stage for a new era of global conflict.
A century after Sir Halford Mackinder first outlined his Heartland theory, its relevance remains strikingly clear. The ongoing war in Ukraine reflects the geopolitical realities Mackinder foresaw: control over Eastern Europe and the Heartland is a key determinant of global power. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not an isolated event but a manifestation of its long-standing geostrategic ambitions to dominate the Heartland and, through it, project power globally.
For the world’s freedom and stability, Ukraine has become the frontline of defense. The war’s outcome will determine whether the Heartland remains in the hands of an aggressive power seeking to expand its influence or if the global community can successfully counter these ambitions and prevent a new global conflict. As the war grinds on, Mackinder’s warnings about the dangers of unchecked expansionism resonate louder than ever. The stakes for Ukraine, Europe, and the world are immense.
