Eurasia and the return of Mackinder’s Geopolitics

The more they change, the more things remain the same

More than a century ago, British geographer and political thinker Halford Mackinder presented a theory that continues to shape debates on global power politics. Writing in 1904, Mackinder argued that geography was not merely a backdrop to international affairs; it was one of the decisive forces determining the rise and decline of great powers. His famous “Heartland Theory” proposed that the vast landmass of Eurasia stretching from Eastern Europe to Central Asia and Siberia constituted the strategic pivot of world politics. At the time, the theory appeared to many as an abstract geopolitical formulation rooted in imperial competition. Yet in the 21st century, the renewed contest over Eurasia has once again brought Mackinder’s ideas into sharp focus.

Mackinder famously wrote: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; who rules the World Island commands the world.” By “World Island,” he referred to the combined continents of Europe, Asia and Africa as the largest concentration of population, resources and economic activity on earth. The “Heartland,” meanwhile, was the interior of Eurasia, particularly the territories dominated by the Russian Empire and Central Asia. His central argument was simple: a power capable of controlling Eurasia’s core would possess immense strategic advantages over maritime rivals.

For much of the 20th century, Mackinder’s theory influenced strategic thinking in both Europe and the USA. During the Cold War, the USSR’s domination of Eastern Europe appeared to validate his assumptions. Western policymakers feared that Moscow’s control over the Eurasian interior could translate into overwhelming geopolitical influence. Consequently, the policy of containment pursued by the USA and its allies was partly rooted in preventing Soviet expansion across Eurasia.

The collapse of the USSR in 1991 led many observers to believe that geopolitics itself had lost relevance. Economic globalisation, technological interdependence and liberal internationalism were expected to replace territorial competition. Borders seemed less important in an increasingly connected world.

Yet the events of the past two decades have demonstrated that geography remains central to international politics. In many respects, Eurasia has once again become the arena where major powers seek influence, security and strategic advantage. The resurgence of Russia under Vladimir Putin reflects this reality. Since coming to power, Putin has consistently sought to restore Russian influence in the former Soviet space. Moscow views Eastern Europe and Central Asia not merely as neighbouring regions but as essential buffers for its national security.

More than 100 years after Mackinder formulated his Heartland Theory, the struggle for Eurasia continues to shape the direction of world politics. The methods and technologies may have changed, but the central question remains remarkably familiar: who will shape the political and strategic future of the world’s most important landmass?

The conflict in Ukraine, therefore, is not only a territorial dispute; it is also a geopolitical struggle over the balance of power in Eurasia. From the Russian perspective, the eastward expansion of NATO represents an encroachment into a region historically considered vital to Russian security interests.

Mackinder’s theory gains renewed relevance in this context. Eastern Europe, particularly Ukraine, remains strategically significant because it connects European power centres with the Eurasian interior. Control over this corridor has historically shaped the security calculations of both Russia and Western powers. The ongoing war has therefore revived classical geopolitical concerns that many assumed belonged to the past.

At the same time, China has emerged as another major actor reshaping Eurasian politics. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative is perhaps the clearest contemporary example of a Eurasian strategy grounded in geography. Through roads, railways, ports and energy corridors, China seeks to connect East Asia with Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Europe. Although presented primarily as an economic initiative, the project also carries significant geopolitical implications.

By strengthening continental trade routes, China reduces its dependence on maritime pathways vulnerable to US naval power. In strategic terms, Beijing is attempting to integrate large parts of Eurasia through infrastructure and economic connectivity. Central Asia, once viewed as a remote periphery, has become a crucial crossroads linking Chinese industry to European and Middle Eastern markets. This transformation echoes Mackinder’s emphasis on the strategic importance of the Eurasian interior.

The growing significance of Central Asia further underlines the return of geopolitics. Countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan possess vast energy resources and occupy key transit corridors. As competition intensifies between Russia, China, the USA and regional powers such as Turkey, Central Asia has become a zone of overlapping strategic interests. The region’s political orientation and economic partnerships increasingly carry implications beyond its immediate geography.

For the USA, the challenge remains preventing the emergence of a single dominant Eurasian power. US foreign policy since World War II has consistently sought to maintain a balance of power across Europe and Asia. Washington’s alliances in Europe, the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East are partly designed to limit the consolidation of hostile influence across Eurasia. Even the growing American focus on the Indo-Pacific cannot be separated from the wider Eurasian context, particularly in relation to China’s rise.

Yet the contemporary geopolitical environment differs significantly from Mackinder’s era. Technological change has altered the nature of power in important ways. Air power, cyber capabilities, satellite systems and digital networks have reduced some of the barriers once imposed by geography. Maritime trade continues to dominate the global economy despite efforts to develop continental corridors. Moreover, economic interdependence means that states are connected through finance, technology and supply chains in ways unimaginable a century ago.

Nevertheless, geography has not disappeared from global politics. Energy pipelines, transport routes, military bases and territorial control remain central to state strategy. The war in Ukraine, tensions in the South China Sea and competition over Arctic routes all demonstrate that physical space continues to shape international affairs.

Eurasia, with its enormous resources, strategic corridors and demographic weight, remains at the centre of this contest. For countries such as Pakistan, these developments carry both opportunities and risks. Pakistan’s location at the intersection of South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East gives it considerable strategic relevance in the evolving Eurasian order. Projects such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor are linked to broader regional connectivity initiatives that seek to integrate Eurasian markets. At the same time, intensifying rivalry among major powers requires careful diplomatic balancing.

The enduring relevance of Mackinder’s theory lies not in its deterministic view of geography but in its recognition that space, resources and connectivity continue to influence political power. Eurasia today is not simply a geographic entity; it is the principal theatre where competing visions of global order are unfolding. Russia seeks strategic depth, China pursues economic integration, and the USA aims to preserve balance and influence. Between these competing ambitions lies a vast region whose importance has once again become impossible to ignore.

More than 100 years after Mackinder formulated his Heartland Theory, the struggle for Eurasia continues to shape the direction of world politics. The methods and technologies may have changed, but the central question remains remarkably familiar: who will shape the political and strategic future of the world’s most important landmass?