At the dawn of the 20th century, Sir Halford John Mackinder revolutionized the study of international relations by arguing that geography determines global power. In his famous 1904 lecture “The Geographical Pivot of History,” Mackinder proposed that whoever controls the Heartland — the vast, resource-rich core of the Eurasian continent — could eventually dominate the world. His timeless formula summarized it perfectly:
“Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland;
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
Who rules the World-Island commands the world.”
Today, amid renewed great-power competition, economic corridors linking China and Europe, the melting Arctic routes, and hybrid wars, Mackinder’s ideas are once again in the spotlight. Are they still valid, or have technology and globalization made them obsolete?
This article revisits Mackinder’s legacy and the early founders of geopolitics — like Rudolf Kjellén — and tests their relevance in the 21st-century context: the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Middle Corridor, the Northern Sea Route, and the Russia-Ukraine war.
1. The Birth of Geopolitics: Mackinder, Kjellén, and the Idea of Territorial Power
Halford John Mackinder (1861–1947)
A British geographer and politician, Mackinder is often called the father of modern geopolitics. His central claim was that global dominance depends on control of the Eurasian landmass, which he termed the Heartland — a zone rich in natural resources, difficult to access by sea, and therefore highly defensible.
In his 1919 book “Democratic Ideals and Reality,” he refined his theory, warning that maritime powers like Britain could lose their supremacy if a single continental power united the Heartland.
Rudolf Kjellén (1864–1922)
The Swedish political scientist Rudolf Kjellén coined the term “geopolitics” (Geopolitik) and viewed the state as a living organism rooted in space, population, and economy. His holistic framework integrated political, demographic, and geographic dimensions — anticipating what we now call multidisciplinary geopolitics.
Together, Mackinder and Kjellén laid the intellectual foundation for modern strategic thought, influencing both Western and continental schools of geopolitics.
2. Mackinder’s Heartland Theory Explained
In 1904, Mackinder introduced the concept of the “Geographical Pivot of History” — the central area of the Eurasian landmass stretching from Eastern Europe to Siberia. He believed that whoever controlled this “pivot area” could command vast resources, project power inland, and remain secure from maritime invasion.
His famous triadic formula:
Control Eastern Europe → Control the Heartland
Control the Heartland → Control the World-Island (Eurasia + Africa)
Control the World-Island → Control the World
The logic was straightforward: the land power that dominates the interior of Eurasia gains access to both Europe and Asia, and can ultimately project global influence.
3. Criticisms and Historical Limitations
While Mackinder’s Heartland theory shaped early 20th-century strategic thought, it faced important critiques:
-
Air and missile power: The rise of aviation and long-range missiles undermined the defensive advantages of land-locked territories.
-
Globalization and trade: The growing dominance of maritime and digital commerce made territorial control less decisive.
-
Alliances and international law: Modern institutions and global interdependence limit the dominance of any single land power.
-
Technological revolutions: Communication, cyber networks, and economic flows transcend physical geography.
Nonetheless, Mackinder’s insight — that geography still conditions strategy — remains an essential analytical tool.
4. The Heartland in the 21st Century: Return of Eurasian Geopolitics
4.1 The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): Infrastructure as Strategy
China’s Belt and Road Initiative, launched in 2013 and still expanding in 2025, is the clearest modern embodiment of the Heartland logic. Through massive investments in railways, pipelines, ports, and digital infrastructure, Beijing is connecting the Chinese economy to Europe via Central Asia.
These trans-Eurasian corridors — from Kazakhstan to Uzbekistan and beyond — are more than trade routes; they are instruments of geopolitical influence. The BRI shows that controlling infrastructure networks is the new form of territorial dominance.
Mackinder’s relevance: Land connectivity through Central Asia mirrors the Heartland’s strategic centrality — control over these corridors equals influence across Eurasia.
4.2 Competing Corridors: The Middle Corridor and the “New Silk Roads”
In response to geopolitical tensions and sanctions on Russia, alternative trade routes are emerging. The Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, also known as the Middle Corridor, links China to Europe via Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus, and Turkey — bypassing Russian territory.
These multimodal corridors demonstrate that Eurasia remains the main stage for strategic competition. Control over transit routes today confers economic leverage and political influence, much like controlling the “pivot area” in Mackinder’s era.
4.3 The Russia–Ukraine War: Eastern Europe as the Gateway to the Heartland
The 2022 invasion of Ukraine revived Mackinder’s formula: “Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland.”
For Russia, Ukraine represents a strategic buffer and access route to the Black Sea and the European plain; for the West, supporting Kyiv prevents Moscow from consolidating control over the Heartland.
While the conflict shows that direct territorial conquest faces resistance in the modern world, it also confirms that geography still matters — energy pipelines, logistics hubs, and border depth remain crucial in determining military and economic resilience.
4.4 The Arctic and the Northern Sea Route: A New Geographical Pivot
Climate change is melting the Arctic ice, opening new shipping lanes such as the Northern Sea Route (NSR) — a much shorter passage between Asia and Europe. Russia, in partnership with China, is investing heavily in Arctic infrastructure, ports, and resource extraction.
The Arctic is becoming the new Heartland, offering strategic advantages in energy, minerals, and global trade. Whoever controls the NSR could command a new axis of global connectivity — echoing Mackinder’s geographic logic in an era of climate transformation.
5. Energy, Resources, and Infrastructure: The Modern Tools of Power
In the 21st century, power is expressed through control of critical resources and infrastructures:
-
Energy pipelines and mining projects in Central Asia shape alliances and dependencies.
-
Digital connectivity (fiber optics, satellites) creates invisible but strategic corridors.
-
Debt diplomacy and financing become tools of influence comparable to territorial occupation.
China, Russia, Turkey, and the EU all compete for stakes in these infrastructures — showing that the struggle for the Heartland continues, only with economic and technological instruments instead of armies.
6. Updating Classical Geopolitics for the Modern World
Mackinder’s framework remains valuable but requires adaptation to today’s realities:
-
Technology and cyberspace: Control now extends into the digital realm — cyber infrastructure, satellites, and AI systems define new “territories.”
-
Non-state actors: Multinational corporations, financial institutions, and NGOs shape geopolitics beyond state borders.
-
Soft power and interdependence: Influence flows through culture, economy, and innovation, not only military force.
-
Climate change: Environmental shifts create new strategic zones (Arctic, desertification zones, water scarcity regions).
Modern reinterpretation: Geopolitics must integrate physical geography and network geography — combining territory with flows of data, capital, and energy.
7. What Remains True — and What Doesn’t — in Mackinder’s Theory
| Aspect | Still Valid Today | Needs Revision |
|---|---|---|
| Geography shapes power | ✓ Yes — natural resources and location still matter. | — |
| Land vs. sea dichotomy | Partially — maritime and digital domains dilute it. | ✓ Update needed. |
| Control of Eurasia ensures dominance | ✓ Partly — Eurasia remains central, but control is multidimensional (infrastructure, economy, cyber). | ✓ Must include non-physical dimensions. |
| Isolation equals security | ✗ No — interdependence and global networks make isolation a weakness. | ✓ Replace with “resilient connectivity.” |
8. Case Studies: Modern Applications of the Heartland Logic
China
Through the Belt and Road Initiative, China is building the largest terrestrial infrastructure network in history — from railways in Kazakhstan to ports in Pakistan and digital corridors across Central Asia. The goal is both economic integration and strategic depth.
Russia
Moscow’s policies in Ukraine, the Caucasus, and the Arctic reflect a quest for strategic buffers and control over energy routes — a direct echo of Mackinder’s concern with the “geographical pivot.”
Europe and Turkey
The EU and Turkey promote alternative corridors (like the Middle Corridor and the Global Gateway) to diversify supply chains and reduce dependency on Russian or Chinese routes — a modern strategy of balancing Heartland powers.
9. Conclusion: The Timeless Value of Geopolitical Thinking
More than a century after its conception, Mackinder’s Heartland theory remains one of the most powerful frameworks for understanding global strategy.
The rise of Eurasian connectivity, competition for resources, and regional conflicts confirm that territory, location, and logistics still determine power.
However, the 21st century demands a broader perspective:
-
Geopolitical power now depends on who controls data flows, critical minerals, and sustainable routes.
-
The future of the Heartland lies not only in tanks and pipelines, but in infrastructure resilience, digital sovereignty, and climate adaptation.
Policy takeaway: Nations must invest in diversified supply routes, cyber defense, renewable energy corridors, and cooperative governance of emerging strategic spaces such as the Arctic and Central Asia.