I believe that everyone who is familiar with the history of the 20th century will be familiar with the term "land power theory". Along with the theory of land power, there is also the theory of sea power and the theory of air power. In particular, the theory of sea power must be very familiar to everyone.
Then the proposer of the theory of land power was first proposed by the very famous British geopolitician Mackinder. On the eve of World War I, he set his sights on the vast continent of Eurasia, the first to distinguish between land and sea power, believing that with the development of land transportation, the "heartland" of Eurasia would become the most important strategic region. This assertion has had a profound impact on world politics.
British geopolitician Mackinder
The core point of the theory of land power can be expressed in the famous syllogism: "Whoever rules Eastern Europe can control the heartland of the continent; whoever controls the heartland of the continent can control the world island; whoever controls the whole world can control the whole world." This summary can also be described as a classic geopolitical argument.
The world island is Eurasia, and the heartland is the highlands of northern and central Eurasia. To be precise, it is from Eastern Europe in the west, to Central Siberia and Mongolia in the east, from Asia Minor, the South Caucasus, Persia and china in the west, and to the Arctic Ocean in the north. Its periphery depends on the distance and manpower, except for the gate of Eastern Europe, the rest of the direction of the Sea Springs countries are not easy to enter, becoming the world's largest natural fortress, while the countries occupying the heartland have repeatedly expanded to the edge of Eurasia, just like the huge empire established by the ancient nomads, the heartland country that has obtained modern technology will become the "modern Tatar" that will make the maritime countries fearful.
There is some basis for this argument. Most importantly, Mackinder was British, and he proposed that the land power theory was still in the service of British sea power interests. At that time, Britain and Russia were fighting for the whole of Eurasia, Britain in the south, Russia in the north, from the Black Sea through the Middle East, Central Asia to the Far East, and Russian expansion made Mackinder feel a great threat. Therefore, the proposal of the theory of land power is actually directed at Russia.
Later, he made some corrections to include the entire Central and Eastern European region in the heartland. In his view, Germany, as another country in Central and Eastern Europe trying to challenge Britain, was as dangerous as Russia. He pointed out that if either Germany and Russia conquered another country, or the German-Russian alliance, it would be the greatest disaster for Britain and the United States. Moreover, Germany had enormous technological superiority that Russia did not possess, and if combined with Russia's vast territory, which occupied most of its heartland, it would pose the most serious challenge to Britain and the United States.
Schematic map of the world's islands
The immediate effect of this argument was that it influenced Hitler's later geostrategy. Hitler's attempt to conquer Russia clearly had elements of trying to control the heart of the world's islands. Although the Nazi geopolitical chaos, ultimately failed. But the Soviet Union succeeded in reversing and thus consolidating all the Slavic states, occupying half of Germany for the first time, and in fact basically occupying most of the heartland of the land power theory.
It is generally believed that the theory of land power was one of the causes of the two world wars, especially World War II. The theory of land power has therefore attracted much attention, and the American geopolitician Spiekman has specifically proposed the "marginal zone theory" to confront it, proposing that the United States occupy the four "marginal zones" of Eurasia from west to east, namely Western Europe, the Middle East, India, and East Asia, at least occupying the outer islands, because these places are the most potential areas and have always been the core of human civilization. This is the origin of the U.S. "noose strategy" and ultimately helped the United States win the Cold War.
The periphery theory is in direct opposition to the land power theory
The Soviet Union essentially occupied the heartland, but lost the Cold War. In fact, if one analyzes the geopolitical gains and losses of the Soviet Union, it is easy to see that it is a terrestrial beast locked in the north of Eurasia, which controls all areas from the Elbe to the Bering Strait, but is ultimately trapped in the cold polar regions of the north, and has never been able to break into the rich edges of Eurasia. Russia's expansion in Europe was at its furthest point in Berlin, its expansion in the Middle East never broke through the Black Sea Strait, India was an unattainable "rainbow", and the occupation of Afghanistan exhausted the soviet union's national strength, when it was less than a millimeter of border from South Asia, but at this moment, it collapsed.
As for the Far East, the Soviet Union's power never really penetrated into the East China Sea, its support for Vietnam also seriously consumed it, its hegemonic behavior around the world far exceeded the scope of its national strength, it always lacked access to the sea, the navy and air force were weak, limiting its power projection, and eventually the Soviet Union's expansion collapsed like a rubber band.
Russia occupies the heartland
This called into question McKinder's theory, and the fringe theory triumphed in practice. So, is the land power theory really flawed?
The answer is yes. First of all, the most important geopolitical basis of the land power theory, the heartland, from the map you will find that it encompasses most of Siberia, if that place is the center of the world, whoever occupies Siberia can conquer Eurasia, it is impossible. The historical nomadic core is located neither in Eastern Europe nor Siberia, but in the Mongolian plateau, which was the main source of violence in the ancient world. However, the Mongolian plateau was located in the south, and it was located in the east, quite far away from Eastern Europe, and while conquering Eastern Europe, the Mongols also lost the ability to continue to invade Western Europe. The Mongolian plateau and Central Asia are indeed the roots of nomadic peoples, but that has little to do with Eastern Europe. Historically, Eastern Europe was a region of fishing and hunting peoples that were even more backward than nomadic peoples, and before the 8th century, there was no record and no social organization, and the sudden rise of Russia benefited from the two hundred years of rule of the Golden Horde, but Russia did not seize the power of the world.
The so-called heartland is actually very desolate
Secondly, the lack of access to the sea in the heartland is very easy to be besieged today in the developed navy and air force, and the later Soviet Union is indeed trapped in this way.
Moreover, Mackinder's theory clearly ignores the influence of later air forces on geomorphology. He proposed this theory in 1902, just a year before the invention of the airplane. The Wright brothers' original crumbling paper airplane didn't seem to be a world-changing invention. But 66 years later, humans are already on the moon. Under the great superiority of the sea and air delivery ability, the sea power still has the upper hand.
The theory of land power was one of the causes of the two world wars
In fact, human beings have lived in humid offshore areas since ancient times, the ocean occupies a natural advantage, only the invention of the saddle allows nomads to occupy the advantage of a thousand years, which is not the norm. It is also expected that Spiekerman's theory of marginal zones will eventually triumph through superior natural conditions and superior naval and air forces.
But I am afraid that both the Germans and the Russians have misunderstood Mackinder's meaning. Mackinder, a Native of England, proposed the theory of land power because of the fear of the German-Russian Empire, not to persuade Germany and Russia to occupy the heartland and conquer the world. On the contrary, he simply pointed out the threat to Britain and the United States posed by the vast land empires that occupied Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia and North Asia, and proposed ways to deal with the threat. I think he would be happy to see the defeat of the Terrestrial Empire and the collapse of Germany and Russia to his ends.
Dressed in the skin of the Westerners, Germany originated from the culture of the world that opposed the Westerners and flourished in Russia, but Germany eventually had to join the West, and Russia wanted to join but could not. If McKinder saw this, he would have felt very sarcastic.