In this first installation of Two Lakes Group’s “Recommended Reading” series, we discuss the surprising contemporary relevance of the British geographer and theorist, H.J. Mackinder, whose century-old theory about the geopolitical significance of central Asia “Heartland” in global politics has found receptive audience in recent years in no other than Vladimir Putin’s chief advisor, Aleksandr Dugin, who borrowed it as the framework for his neo-Eurasian political vision of post Soviet Russia.

Halford Mackinder and His Theory

Halford John Mackinder (1861-1947) was a British geographer, academic, and one of the founding figures of modern geopolitics and geostrategy. Born in Gainsborough, England, Mackinder studied at Oxford University and later became the first director of the London School of Economics. His work combined geography with politics, focusing on the strategic implications of geographic features in shaping global power dynamics. Despite the significant shifts in geopolitics that have taken place over the past century, Mackinder’s contribution to our understanding of the relationship between geography and international relations remains uniquely relevant for making sense of contemporary geopolitics. His theory forces us to recognize that the geographical contours of our planet are much more than the stage upon which great power dynamics take place, for they actually determine them to a great extent. Furthermore, as we shall see in this essay, Mackinder’s analytical framework lives on and it continues to inspire influential thinkers and policy makers, of which “Putin’s philosopher,” the Russian thinker Aleksandr Dugin (1962-) is a prime example.

Mackinder’s most influential contribution was his Heartland Theory, which he first introduced in a 1904 paper, “The Geographical Pivot of History.” There, he argued that the central region of Eurasia, which he called the “Heartland,” was the pivot that held the key to global dominance due to its vast resources, strategic location, and natural defensibility. He famously stated:

“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;

Who rules the World-Island commands the World.”

Mackinder’s theory divides the world into three key regions:

1. The Heartland (central Eurasia): The core (“pivot”) area of power, which lays at the heart of the “World island” (Eurasia and Africa)

2. The Inner or Marginal Crescent (coastal areas around Eurasia, including Western Europe, the Middle East, and China).

3. The Outer Crescent (maritime powers like Britain, the U.S., and Japan).

To make better sense of Mackinder’s Heartland Theory, and the geographical taxonomy it put forth, we ought to first reconstruct the historical context in which his thought emerged. The period in which Mackinder wrote was rife with geopolitical shifts. The global hegemony of the British Empire, which reached its zenith in the latter half of the nineteenth century, was challenged by newly emergent actors in world politics: the recently unified Germany that not only threatened Britain’s industrial prowess and naval superiority, but also began claiming new colonies overseas to match its dominant role within European politics; the rapidly industrialised U.S. which had only shortly beforhand defeated Spain in the Spanish-Americn War (1898) and in whose aftermath stood as the hegemonic power in the Caribbean basin and Latin America and become a new player in Asian geopolitics by gaining important strongholds in the Pacific; and, lastly, post-Meiji Restoration Japan which had recently become a force to be reckoned with in East Asia after its resounding defeat of Imperial China in the first Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), and which was at the time embroiled in a triumphant war against Russia in which it would eventually gain a historically unprecdented military victory over a European power (1904-1905).

In other words, just as Britain’s global maritime empire was being threatened from all sides Mackinder turned to history and geography to reflect on fundamental relationship between land and sea powers. What would be the fate of the Heartland in a period where China and Russia – the-then imperial custodians of the territories that engulf the Heartland (and in Russia’s case actually controlled most of it) – were in a steady path of decline? Mackinder suggested that although Britain was in essence an Outer Crescent maritime power, by virtue of its colonial holdings in India (whose territory during that period stretched from Iran in the west to Burma in the east) Britain also had significant stakes in the Inner/Marginal Crescent as it was perched stratigically on the margins of the Heartland. Britain, therefore, had to contend with the geographic signficance of the Heartland region if it were to adequately understand its true position in global politics.

Mackinder postulated that any power that dominated the Heartland is bound to pose a threat to global stability due its paramount strategic geographical importance, especially if it that power could also control the surrounding Marginal Crescent. In the aftermath of the First World War, in which the map of eastern Europe and large parts of Asia had been dramatically redrawn, Mackinder’s theory gained newfound interest that motivated the republication of his theory in book form. In his 1919 book “Democratic Ideals and Reality”, Mackinder considerably expanded on his 1904 article and repurposed it for the post-Versailles era by promoting a critique of Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic approach to international relations. Crucially, Mackinder had to contend with the Bolshevik revolution (1917) and the Russian civil war that ensued, which had entirely transformed the dynamics of power in the Heartland region. On the basis of his expertise, between 1919-1920 at the height of the Russian Civil War, Mackinder served as the British High Commissioner in southern Russia, where he repeatedly and vehemently emphasised Britain’s supreme interest in uniting the White Russian forces in their war against the Bolsheviks so as to restore the Tsar’s erstwhile control of the region.

Though the Heartland was one of the very few global regions that hardly experienced direct combat in the Second World War the importance of the Heartland did not wane. For it was the strategic depth afforded to the Soviet Union by its Heartland territory (which stood well beyond the range of the German and Japanese airstrikes) that led to its victory over the Axis powers. With the emergence of the Soviet Union as a global superpower in the postwar context, Mackinder’s theory gained new admirers as his Heartland theory inspired Western strategists and policy makers who sought to find ways to contain the Soviet Union in the Cold War era.

Mackinder’s legacy thus lies in his fundamental claim that great power dynamics are ultimately founded upon a geographical plinth. As such, his theory has been foundational for geopolitical thought and international relations theories alike. To this day, Mackinder’s Heartland Theory continues to resonate in debates about Eurasia and the way in Russia and China’s presence in the Heartland defines their role in contemporary geopolitics. In particular, Mackinder’s thesis currently features in Russia’s present geopolitical ideology and serves a pivotal role in the Eurasian vision of “Putin’s Philosopher” Aleksandr Dugin. If we wish to better understand better the motivation behind Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine, his interventions in central Asia, and his adamant refusal to make any concessions in East Europe that might weaken Russia’s grip in the region, Dugin’s interpretation of Mackinder is a good place to start. For over two decades now, Dugin has served as one of Putin’s closest political advisors and is considered the chief strategist of the Russian president’s inner circle.

Aleksandr Dugin’s Appropriation of the Heartland Theory

Aleksandr Dugin’s appropriation of the Heartland Theory initially took place during the immediate post-Soviet period. Still a PhD student at the time, Dugin turned to Mackinder in his doctoral thesis to make sense of Russia’s contemporary geopolitical role in Eurasia. The thesis later featured in Dugin’s first book, Foundations of Geopolitics: the Geopolitical Role of Russia (1997). Published only two years before Vladimir Putin’s ascent to power when Russia’s international stature was in its nadir, Dugin’s book harped on the fears and frustrations of a Russian audience that was extremely discontent with Russia’s humiliating slump in international standing after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the book, Dugin relied on Mackinder’s Heartland Theory to emphasize the cardinal importance of Russia’s maintaining its firm grip on eastern Europe and central Asia as a necessary precondition if it wished to remain a global superpower. Dugin’s understanding of Russia as a Eurasian land power, and especially his conviction that Russia cannot afford to make any concessions in eastern Europe lest it will jeopardize its grip over the entire Heartland owes much to Mackinder’s aforementioned dictum: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island”.

Even though Mackinder’s theory appeared decades before airplanes and ballistic missiles came to dominant modern warfare, and depite the fact that the Cold War exceeded confines of planet Earth in reaching outter space notwithstanding, Dugin continued to treat the U.S., like Mackinder before him, as a predominantly maritime power. To Dugin’s defense, even today, American military hegemony is still ultimately founded on its global naval dominance. Due to its peripheral geographical location in relation to the Heartland, the U.S., like Britain before it, could only exert its military power on the World-Island by controlling the seas that surround it. Even in today’s world, where fighter jets and ballistic missiles have all but replaced gunships, the key symbol of U.S. military hegemony is none other than the aircraft carrier. Dugin’s Neo-Eurasianism therefore expands on Mackinder’s ideas by framing Russia as the core of a Eurasian civilization resisting Western liberalism. This is, crucially, where Dugin parts from Mackinder. Dugin views Eurasia as a cultural and geopolitical counterweight to Western (primarily American) hegemony, emphasizing the uniquely Russian historical attachment to the Heartland. Whereas Mackinder considered the Heartland as a historically contested region which is up for grabs, Dugin treats it as a uniquely Russian space that is a historical patrimony of the Russian nation. To wit, Dugin imbues Mackinder’s ideas with a stark ideological tone, turning categories which for Mackinder were merely descriptive into nationalistic ones. Let us consider a few aspects in order to highlight this fundamental difference:

1. Land Power vs. Sea Power – Mackinder distinguished between land-based empires (Heartland powers) and sea-based powers (e.g., Britain, the U.S.). Dugin adopts this dichotomy, but he then positions Russia as the defender of “land power” values (traditionalism, Christian orthodoxy) against “sea power” values (liberalism, globalism). The subtext here is that liberal democracy itself is a foreign concept that is endemic to maritime empires like Britain and the U.S. and is therefore entirely inapplicable to Russia.

2. The Heartland and Anti-Western Ideology – Mackinder’s work was analytical and not inherently anti-Western, but his ideas about controlling the Heartland were soon adapted by powers who sought to challenge the western universalist values of Britain and the U.S., for example Nazi Germany’s conception of eastern Europe and central Asian territories constituting its geographic ‘living space’ (Lebensraum). Similarly, Dugin explicitly adopts Mackinder’s framework to champion anti-Western ideology, recognising Russia as the natural leader of a multipolar world order opposing Western unipolar dominance.

3. Geopolitics of Eurasia – Mackinder’s Eurasian focus laid the groundwork for understanding the strategic significance of the region, and his work has been applied in both Western and Russian geopolitical strategies. Dugin on the other hand reinterprets Mackinder through an exclusive Russian nationalist lens, asserting that Eurasian unity under Russia’s stewardship is essential to resist the perceived cultural and political encroachments of the West. In doing so, Dugin effectively denies the independent nationalist aspirations claims of the peoples of the region.

To make sense of Dugin’s nationalist interpretation of Mackinder one needs to turn to the writings of Mackinder’s contemporary–the Russian conservative orthodox philosopher Ivan Ilyin (1883-1954) who in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution defined Russia not in geographical terms but instead viewed it ideologically as a spiritual-national entity. For Ilyin, Russia’s defining feature was its perceived spiritual patrimony as the representative of Orthodox Christianity, which entails a civilising role that in turn justifies Russia’s historical claim to Eastern Europe and its expansion into central Asia. Comparable to America’s Manifest Destiny that spurred its expansion into the west, Russia, too, was endowed with a similar destiny that underpins its geographical expansion to the east. From this unique amalgam of Mackinder and Ilyin, Dugin painted a post-Soviet, Eurasian geopolitical vision tailored for post-Soviet Russia. Crucially, with Dugin the Heartland Theory has been transformed into policy: The Russian invasion to Ukraine in 2014 and 2022; the de-facto annexation of Abkhazia and Ossetia and subsequent intervention in Georgian politics; and the deployment of Russian military forces to quell anti-government protests in Kazakhstan, have all been directly inspired by Dugin’s vision of Russia as Eurasian power. His central role in shaping Putin’s policy has made Dugin a political target and since the outbreak of conflict in Ukraine in 2022 several assassination attempts have been made on his life, including one that eventually claimed the life of his daughter, Darya.

Mackinder Today

A major blind spot in Dugin’s interpretation of the Heartland was his failure to predict China’s incursion into the Heartland. By conceiving Russia as an antidote to Western hegemony Dugin did not foresee that the meteoric rise of China over the past two decades will inevitable impact Russia’s control of the region. The Belt and Road Initiative and China’s growing involvement in central Asia are curtailing Russia’s influence in the region. What is more, China’s growing influence in the region takes place at a historical juncture where Russia is internationally isolated and finds itself increasingly dependent on China. It seems like Mackinder had the upper hand over Dugin’s interpretation, for by focusing on the first part of Mackinder’s dictum, Dugin seemed to presuppose that the last part – “Who rules the World-Island commands the World” – would naturally follow. The assumption that Russia can restore its status as a global superpower seems today dubious at best. Dugin’s jingoist faith in Russian exceptionalism has prevented him from recognising that the real threat on Russia’s claim over the Heartland lies not in the West but in the East. The Heartland may indeed hold the keys to command the World-island, but all the signs post in the direction of it being governed from Beijing rather than Moscow. In an ironic twist of fate, the Ukraine invasion might prove in retrospect as a Pyrrhic victory in which Russia’s desperate attempt to reassert its dominance in Eastern Europe ultimately resulted in it ceding its control of the Heartland to China. If we follow Mackinder’s logic it is no coincidence that China’s expansion into the Heartland coincides with China’s rise to the rank of superpower as the main contender to U.S. hegemony. It appears that the Heartland theory, with its emphasis on geographical determinism rather than ideology and its related claim whereby the World-Island is framed as the central arena for any power wishing to challenge the hegemony of the West, remains as relevant today as it has been since its inception over a century ago.