Mackinder’s Heartland vs Spykman’s Rimland: Neither Is Winning for the “Motherland”!

For anyone still selling the West’s grand strategy as a coherent product, is that the framework itself has aged worse than either of its authors could have imagined. Mackinder and Spykman were writing about a world where land power and sea power were mutually exclusive career choices.

A land-based power, unbothered by blockades and unreachable by gunboats, gliding across its own railways from the Volga to the Yangtze, was Britain’s nightmare and, later, Washington’s inherited anxiety. One hundred and twenty-two years on, the nightmare has a passport, a seat on the UN Security Council, and lately a rather large Caribbean-adjacent hobby.

Mackinder’s rebuttal arrived courtesy of Nicholas Spykman, a Dutch-American strategist writing in 1942 with the tanks of two hemispheres rolling past his window.

Spykman looked at the map and decided the interior was overrated. What mattered, he argued, was the Rimland, the crescent of coastal and littoral states running from Western Europe through the Middle East and South Asia to the Pacific Rim, because that was where the population, the industry, the ports actually were. His own dictum, less lyrical than Mackinder’s but far more practical, was that he who rules the Rimland rules Eurasia, and he who rules Eurasia rules the world.

Where Mackinder trusted railways, Spykman trusted the amphibious reach of a navy that could put troops ashore anywhere the tide allowed. It is not an exaggeration to say that Spykman, not Kennan, drew the map that Kennan’s containment doctrine would later color in. NATO, CENTO, SEATO, and eventually the “First Island Chain” running from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines are Spykman’s Rimland with alliance logos stapled on.

This is the faceoff that has quietly organized Western strategic thought for eight decades, and it is worth saying plainly: the West never actually chose between these two men. It absorbed both. The Heartland became the thing to be contained; the Rimland became the wall built to contain it. Every US defense posture since 1947 – namely, from the Marshall Plan’s economic tripwires to AUKUS submarines — meant that Spykman won the argument, provided someone keeps refuting Mackinder by force.

It is less a doctrine than a security blanket, and Washington has been clutching it so tightly for so long that it has started to mistake the blanket for the child.

Enter Beijing, Which Read Both Books

The genuinely interesting development of this decade is that a single power has stopped picking a side in the Mackinder-Spykman quarrel and started buying both arguments at once. The Belt and Road Initiative’s “Belt” is Mackinder made literal: rail corridors, pipelines, and highways threading through Central Asia toward Europe, engineering........

© New Eastern Outlook