Started By
Message

Halford Mackinder’s 1904 paper “The Geographical Pivot of History” is relevent today.

Posted on 10/13/25 at 8:36 am
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 8:36 am
Wiki: The Geographical Pivot of History

Mackinder proposed that control of the Eurasian “Heartland” (roughly the area from Eastern Europe through Central Asia and Siberia) gives a power the potential to dominate the world:

quote:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
Who rules the World-Island commands the World.




In Mackinder’s view, Eastern Europe is the “gateway” to the Heartland. Control over Ukraine, Poland, and the Black Sea region determines who can project power into Eurasia.

Mackinder’s theory was refined by Nicholas Spykman into the concept of the Rimland — the coastal regions surrounding the Heartland. He argued that controlling the Rimland (Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia) was key to containing the Heartland powers (Russia and later China).

Israel’s Role: Israel functions as a Rimland anchor for once British now U.S. influence in the Middle East — a land-based but sea-connected outpost ensuring Western dominance of the Eastern Mediterranean and near access to the Suez Canal and Persian Gulf.

By maintaining military dominance and British/U.S. alignment, Israel ensures that no unified Eurasian or Middle Eastern bloc can form that excludes the U.S. or its naval reach.

U.S. Strategy: Through Israel (and previously through Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Gulf alliances), the U.S. keeps a military foothold in the Rimland to prevent Heartland powers (Russia, China, Iran) from gaining uncontested access to the world’s key energy corridors.

If Eurasia and the Middle East unite economically, particularly under BRICS+, it represents exactly what Mackinder feared — the integration of the Heartland and Rimland into a single cooperative trading bloc, independent of maritime (Western) dominance.

What is the real existential threat to America? Its $37 Trillion in debt. If BRICS counties are a representation of the global heartland uniting and trading together avoiding the U.S. dollar, America with its $37 Trillion in debt is in potentially bad shape.

But the optimistic side of me sees this differently. America is full of natural resources. We are energy independent and we grow a shite ton of food. Our finances might be in terrible shape but our resources and form of government will prevail in the long run, IMO.
Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
52038 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 8:40 am to
quote:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the World

You are just going to ignore that for most of the 20th century this was the USSR, and they were completely and utterly defeated in the battle for world hegemony by the power that controlled the sea?
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 8:43 am to
quote:

You are just going to ignore that for most of the 20th century this was the USSR, and they were completely and utterly defeated in the battle for world hegemony by the power that controlled the sea?


The opposite.

The fact that the USSR was defeated allowed the British/U.S. empires to thrive.

This paper my Mackinder provides the best explanation of why Western financiers want Putin killed and Russia balkanized.
Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
52038 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 8:43 am to
quote:

But the optimistic side of me sees this differently. America is full of natural resources. We are energy independent and we grow a shite ton of food. Our finances might be in terrible shape but our resources and form of government will prevail in the long run, IMO.

This is the point that Trump made when he said that sure our “income statement” looks like shite and our debt seems high, but if you step back and look at our balance sheet we are in great shape. He made the point that our judicial system alone is worth a tremendous amount. And as you say, our natural resources are second only to Russia’s.
Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
52038 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 8:45 am to
quote:

The fact that the USSR was defeated allowed the British/U.S. empires to thrive.

The US was thriving long before the USSR was defeated. The USSR held Eastern Europe, and the US boomed to the point that the USSR finally admitted that they were a dinosaur that could not keep up.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 8:51 am to
quote:

The US was thriving long before the USSR was defeated. T


Well, I agree. But in order to continue to thrive the USSR had to be defeated prevent Eurasia, ME and the East from uniting.


I also did not mention the relevance of Venezuela. Our military presence has nothing to do with drugs. That's just an excuse. It has everything to do with Maduro selling oil to China in the Chinese Yuan.
This post was edited on 10/13/25 at 8:56 am
Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
52038 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 9:05 am to
quote:

But in order to continue to thrive the USSR had to be defeated prevent Eurasia, ME and the East from uniting.

Well, certainly if most of the world united against us it would make the going difficult. That was not close to happening. China, Japan and most of the East were with us against the USSR, and so was most of the Middle East.

This notion that if the East, ME and Eurasia are against us we’d have a hard go of it, is a far cry from the paper’s assertion that whoever controls Eastern Europe will be supreme.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 9:08 am to
quote:

his notion that if the East, ME and Eurasia are against us we’d have a hard go of it, is a far cry from the paper’s assertion that whoever controls Eastern Europe will be supreme.


We sure do fight hard for Eastern Europe for such an inconsequential location as you imply. (We fight hard for the ME too.)
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
57892 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 9:49 am to
There is no potential to dominate from there, at least not for the foreseeable future.

Much of the northern half is permafrost with brutally cold winters, so much so that population is sparse. As you move south, you run into mountains, scrubland and deserts as water becomes more scarce.

Even if the climate were to warm up enough to make the winters more (relatively) mild and push the permafrost further north, it's still a MASSIVE region that must first be populated enough to become a power, then have enough population with enough of a common focus to begin projecting that power outward.
Posted by rmnldr
Member since Oct 2013
39844 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 9:52 am to
Valuable land doesn’t just go underutilized. There’s a reason that this geographical territory has never been the ground base for a continental power and it’s not a grand conspiracy.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 10:12 am to
quote:

There’s a reason that this geographical territory has never been the ground base for a continental power and it’s not a grand conspiracy.



Do you see the "Pivot Area" on the map in the OP. It's not just modern day Russia. It's also Iran. That area is the biggest gap between the East and West. Command that and command the world.

Now you see the motivation from the U.S. and Britain to use Israel as its pit bull to balkanize Iran. Iran is the pivot point in the ME from east to west.

The British and now the US command the seas. That's why China is putting a lot of focus on the land part of their Belt and Road initiative.



(I say Britain because early in the 20th century the eastern Mediterranean in the ME was central to controlling trade and thus resources from east to west to support the British empire. That has shifted to the responsibility of the U.S. after WWII.)


Can you see from the map how important Iran is now in terms of trade between the east and west?





Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
100381 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 10:35 am to
quote:

and they were completely and utterly defeated in the battle for world hegemony by the power that controlled the sea?


Control of the sea is necessary to be a world power. Without that you can only be a land based regional power. You cannot project power beyond your immediate neighbors

See: USSR, Nazi Germany, Ottoman Empire.

Control of the sea allows you to go on the offensive while your homeland is protected from any invasion. That’s the biggest advantage the U.S. has, nobody can invade us. (Outside of Canada and Mexico LOL) We are protected by two massive oceans and we control both. Even if someone managed to land on our shores, they’d have to face not only our military but 300 million armed Americans. We could, if we so chose, cut ourselves off from the old world entirely because we have the natural resources to survive
Posted by I20goon
about 7mi down a dirt road
Member since Aug 2013
19133 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 10:35 am to
I've long been a believer in Mackinder's world island theory, or most of it.

Some of it needs modernization to address in-space technology not to mention airpower. However, most of it is still true. How much influence, with new technologies, does anyone, including USA, on the peririphery of the world island wield in the heartland? Not much. So the model, for the most part, holds.

quote:

You are just going to ignore that for most of the 20th century this was the USSR, and they were completely and utterly defeated in the battle for world hegemony by the power that controlled the sea?
The USSR was a blip. The Tsarist Russians had a great deal of control over the heartland. The Chinese historical extended deep into it with expansion as far as the Dzungarian Gate and the Fergana Valley; they are close to that same expansion now (that's why the alliance between Russia and China will not hold very long after Ukraine, and soon-to-come Azerbaijan.

The only power that held the heartland effectively for a significant period of time (like the Chinese) that also had significant effects on the periphery (like the USSR) was the Mongols.
Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
52038 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 10:53 am to
quote:

We sure do fight hard for Eastern Europe for such an inconsequential location as you imply.

Wait, I didn’t say it was inconsequential; I just said it is not as consequential as that paper seems to say, which is to say it is not the kingmaker.

And how hard did we fight for it? At the end of WW2 we ceded it to the USSR even though we were the sole nuclear power and The USSR depended on us for war matériels.

How far back in history must we go to find the leading nation of the world controlling eastern Europe? To the Middle Ages?
This post was edited on 10/13/25 at 10:55 am
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 10:59 am to
The only reason why we are paying attention to Iran is due to it's strategic geographical location. Not because of religious reasons. There are many other tyrannical Muslim countries around the world and we don't give two shits about them. Iran is at the center of the Pivot Point so its going to get a lot of attention.
Posted by Harry Boutte
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2024
3718 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 11:08 am to
quote:

In Mackinder’s view...

In 1904:

There were only 45 states, Oklahoma was still "Indian Territory".

Geronimo was still alive.

Wright brothers had managed a 5 minute flight in the "Wright Flyer II".

The Russian Baltic Fleet, including 11 battleships, departed Reval and Libau destined for the bottom of the sea at Tsushima Straight at the hands of the Japanese Imperial Navy.

Construction of the Panama Canal began.

The NL champion New York Giants declined to play the AL champion Boston Americans in what would have been only the second World Series.

In 1904, Henry Ford set a land speed record of 91.37 mph. The air speed record was 35 mph (Wright Flyer II).




Mackinder could not have possibly seen how the world was about to change.
Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
52038 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 11:13 am to
quote:

The only reason why we are paying attention to Iran is due to it's strategic geographical location. Not because of religious reasons. There are many other tyrannical Muslim countries around the world and we don't give two shits about them. Iran is at the center of the Pivot Point so its going to get a lot of attention.

That’s not the main reason. It is because they are fomenting revolution and trying to destabilize the region. They were financing Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. They are trying to destabilize the Saudi and Emirate led Middle East.
Posted by el Gaucho
He/They
Member since Dec 2010
58478 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 11:15 am to
The ussr won


Russia is happy and well off today and our economy is fake and we’re all forced to be trans/carjacked/murdered
Posted by FedTiger
Denton Co. Tx
Member since Oct 2013
43 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 11:22 am to
This is really interesting.
My understanding of what’s really going on has been strongly influenced by Peter Zion stuff from about 10 years ago, before he got left-wing (he makes money speaking to Fortune 500 groups and symposiums, which probably skew left-wing).
Put simply– breakdown of current international systems
- as China implodes with demographic and political die off.
- Europe loses vitality because of demographic collapse and loss of enthusiasm for anything.
- massive die off in Africa and a few other places because western food support ends.
- All resulting in a divided, regional power based world with North America, led by the US being the dominant power, but mainly interested in keeping our living standards up, not running the world.
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
100381 posts
Posted on 10/13/25 at 11:27 am to
quote:

The US was thriving long before the USSR was defeated. The USSR held Eastern Europe, and the US boomed to the point that the USSR finally admitted that they were a dinosaur that could not keep up.


The USSR under a more capitalist system would have thrived. Communism and their level of central planning was their undoing. When the state micromanages to the level they choose where individuals get their education and their career path and create a system with no profit motive and no ability to even question anything without punishment it’s doomed to fail. You cannot innovate at a high level and you cannot generate sustainable wealth and eventually it collapses because you run out of resources and along the way blame the any failures on individuals rather than the broken system and the most talented minds end up jailed or killed. Communism starts out ok initially and it’s a slow spiral to the bottom, it never improves a nation
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram