• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

Litwin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Messages
33,607
Reaction score
5,193
Location
GDL/Sweden
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
do you agree with Mackinder that Eastern Europe is the most important (geostrategically) part of the world?

dhlhokiikkojllkk.jpg

.....
The Geographical Pivot of History, sometimes simply as The Pivot of History is a geostrategic theory, also known as Heartland Theory.[1] "The Geographical Pivot of History" was an article submitted by Halford John Mackinder in 1904 to the Royal Geographical Society that advanced his Heartland Theory.[2][3] In this article, Mackinder extended the scope of geopolitical analysis to encompass the entire globe.

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world."
...
Strategic importance of Eastern Europe
Later, in 1919, Mackinder summarised his theory as:

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world."
(Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150)
Any power which controlled the World-Island would control well over 50% of the world's resources. The Heartland's size and central position made it the key to controlling the World-Island.

The vital question was how to secure control for the Heartland. This question may seem pointless, since in 1904 the Russian Empire had ruled most of the area from the Volga to Eastern Siberia for centuries. But throughout the nineteenth century:

The West European powers had combined, usually successfully, in the Great Game to prevent Russian expansion.
The Russian Empire was huge but socially, politically and technologically backward—i.e., inferior in "virility, equipment and organization".

Mackinder held that effective political domination of the Heartland by a single power had been unattainable in the past because:

The Heartland was protected from sea power by ice to the north and mountains and deserts to the south.
Previous land invasions from east to west and vice versa were unsuccessful because lack of efficient transportation made it impossible to assure a continual stream of men and supplies.

He outlined the following ways in which the Heartland might become a springboard for global domination in the twentieth century (Sempa, 2000):

Successful invasion of Russia by a West European nation (most probably Germany). Mackinder believed that the introduction of the railroad had removed the Heartland's invulnerability to land invasion. As Eurasia began to be covered by an extensive network of railroads, there was an excellent chance that a powerful continental nation could extend its political control over the Eastern European gateway to the Eurasian landmass. In Mackinder's words, "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland."....



The combined empire's large East Asian coastline would also provide the potential for it to become a major sea power. Mackinder's "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland ..." does not cover this scenario, probably because the previous 2 scenarios were seen as the major risks of the nineteenth century and the early 1900s.

One of Mackinder's personal objectives was to warn Britain that its traditional reliance on sea power would become a weakness as improved land transport opened up the Heartland for invasion and / or industrialisation (Sempa, 2000).
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

do you agree with Mackinder that Eastern Europe is the most important (geostrategically) part of the world?

dhlhokiikkojllkk.jpg

.....

100 years ago? Yeah, maybe then, when the US was getting over the civil war and in expansion mode and China lived at the mercy of European countries and Brittania ruled the waves, but there's been a couple changes since.
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

100 years ago? Yeah, maybe then, when the US was getting over the civil war and in expansion mode and China lived at the mercy of European countries and Brittania ruled the waves, but there's been a couple changes since.

don't you see that we in eastern europe have exactly the same situation today as it was 100 years ago?

"

By Robert D. Kaplan
Chief Geopolitical Analyst, Stratfor



Russia's geopolitical threat to Central and Eastern Europe should have everyone's mind rushing in the direction of a protean Polish revolutionary, statesman and military leader, Jozef Pilsudski, and his concept of the Intermarium — Latin for "between the seas;" Miedzymorze in Polish. This was a belt of independent states from the Baltic to the Black seas that would work in unison against Russian tyranny from the east and German tyranny from the west. While geopolitics may be about the impersonal influence of geography upon international relations, human agency still applies, so that the idea of an individual Pole from the early 20th century could provide a means for defending freedom in our own era.

Pilsudski dominated Polish affairs from the middle of World War I until his death in 1935. In the words of the late British-educated academic Alexandros Petersen, Pilsudski was from a "staunchly Polonized" family of "disestablished nobility" that had held lands in present-day Lithuania and originally owed its position to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, one of the great powers of 16th- and 17th-century Europe. The destruction of that colossal geopolitical force at the hands of invaders from both east and west provided the motivation behind Pilsudski's vision of a belt of small states to hold in check both Russia and Germany. It was not an altogether new idea. The British geographer Halford Mackinder had proposed something similar a few years earlier in 1919. But whereas Mackinder was only a well-known scholar writing in a book, Pilsudski was a dynamic political leader.

Pilsudski's vision was a product not only of his family history but also of his own bloody experience. He had saved Poland from invading Soviet forces in 1920 in the midst of a number of border wars and went on to become the primary founder of the Second Polish Republic in 1926. Pilsudski's belief in a multicultural Poland to encompass his own Lithuanian background played well with his expansive vision of this anti-Russian belt of states that was, in turn, a spiritual and territorial descendant of that vast tract of territory that had constituted the late medieval and early modern Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which stretched at its zenith from the shivering flatlands of northeastern Europe to the confines of the Ottoman Empire — in present-day Ukraine.
...
This is all a function of geography that Mackinder and especially Pilsudski were the first to address. Pilsudski knew from his own experience that geography is only destiny if you don't turn it to your advantage. The real balance of power should not be a cynical formulation of the status quo between America and Russia, but a bulwark of democracies blocking the path of tyranny."

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/pilsudskis-europe
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

don't you see that we in eastern europe have exactly the same situation today as it was 100 years ago?

"

By Robert D. Kaplan
Chief Geopolitical Analyst, Stratfor



Russia's geopolitical threat to Central and Eastern Europe should have everyone's mind rushing in the direction of a protean Polish revolutionary, statesman and military leader, Jozef Pilsudski, and his concept of the Intermarium — Latin for "between the seas;" Miedzymorze in Polish. This was a belt of independent states from the Baltic to the Black seas that would work in unison against Russian tyranny from the east and German tyranny from the west. While geopolitics may be about the impersonal influence of geography upon international relations, human agency still applies, so that the idea of an individual Pole from the early 20th century could provide a means for defending freedom in our own era.

Pilsudski dominated Polish affairs from the middle of World War I until his death in 1935. In the words of the late British-educated academic Alexandros Petersen, Pilsudski was from a "staunchly Polonized" family of "disestablished nobility" that had held lands in present-day Lithuania and originally owed its position to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, one of the great powers of 16th- and 17th-century Europe. The destruction of that colossal geopolitical force at the hands of invaders from both east and west provided the motivation behind Pilsudski's vision of a belt of small states to hold in check both Russia and Germany. It was not an altogether new idea. The British geographer Halford Mackinder had proposed something similar a few years earlier in 1919. But whereas Mackinder was only a well-known scholar writing in a book, Pilsudski was a dynamic political leader.

Pilsudski's vision was a product not only of his family history but also of his own bloody experience. He had saved Poland from invading Soviet forces in 1920 in the midst of a number of border wars and went on to become the primary founder of the Second Polish Republic in 1926. Pilsudski's belief in a multicultural Poland to encompass his own Lithuanian background played well with his expansive vision of this anti-Russian belt of states that was, in turn, a spiritual and territorial descendant of that vast tract of territory that had constituted the late medieval and early modern Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which stretched at its zenith from the shivering flatlands of northeastern Europe to the confines of the Ottoman Empire — in present-day Ukraine.
...
This is all a function of geography that Mackinder and especially Pilsudski were the first to address. Pilsudski knew from his own experience that geography is only destiny if you don't turn it to your advantage. The real balance of power should not be a cynical formulation of the status quo between America and Russia, but a bulwark of democracies blocking the path of tyranny."

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/pilsudskis-europe

Okay, sure. It's just not as important now as it was then.
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

do you agree with Mackinder that Eastern Europe is the most important (geostrategically) part of the world?

dhlhokiikkojllkk.jpg

.....



So much for that theory.

It's been 113 years and nothing has come of this but left over battle fields.

It was true at one time, the "professor" obviously doesn't bother with history, but about 1500 years ago the Polish kingdom reigned supreme from the Black Sea to the Baltic; were an empire vast enough to have stopped Genghis Kahn's offspring at Kiev.

To this day, a bugler plays part of the anthem stopping in mid note exactly where a predecessor stopped when shot with a Mongolian arrow to mark the fall of Poland's Ukrainian province.
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

Okay, sure. It's just not as important now as it was then.

really , why do think so ? look like even china totally in ...
"China in the Intermarium: The Ukraine and Belarus Connections"


p21_mainx_alc_xx05_one-roadPDF.jpg


Nepal-joins-Chinas-OBOR-initiative.jpg
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium



George Friedman on Trump in Poland and Intermarium
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

So much for that theory.

It's been 113 years and nothing has come of this but left over battle fields.

It was true at one time, the "professor" obviously doesn't bother with history, but about 1500 years ago the Polish kingdom reigned supreme from the Black Sea to the Baltic; were an empire vast enough to have stopped Genghis Kahn's offspring at Kiev.

To this day, a bugler plays part of the anthem stopping in mid note exactly where a predecessor stopped when shot with a Mongolian arrow to mark the fall of Poland's Ukrainian province.

really whats about NATO, and Warsaw pact? whats about Putler´s and his khan juchi project last attempt to take over southern part of "Intermarium ", Ukraine?

of cos he did know it. just one edition, republic (confederation ) of both (GDL/Poland) nations not just the crown (Poland)
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

100 years ago? Yeah, maybe then, when the US was getting over the civil war and in expansion mode and China lived at the mercy of European countries and Brittania ruled the waves, but there's been a couple changes since.
do you agree with Robert Kaplan ?
from 16:16
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

Disagree.

It is a historical fact that the world has never been ruled by the ruler of East Europe.

The Mongols and the Russians both produced mighty empires, the Mongols for about 100 years being the world's foremost.

But the Mongols at their height were nowhere near being commanders even of Asia. And Imperial Russia and the USSR were never even the commanders of Europe, although absent American presence the USSR might have been so after WW2.
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

Disagree.

It is a historical fact that the world has never been ruled by the ruler of East Europe.

The Mongols and the Russians both produced mighty empires, the Mongols for about 100 years being the world's foremost.

But the Mongols at their height were nowhere near being commanders even of Asia. And Imperial Russia and the USSR were never even the commanders of Europe, although absent American presence the USSR might have been so after WW2.

Only once in eastern Europe has been ruled by one ruler , between 1945-86, it was ruled by USSR, and it gave an enormous advance to USSR. without control USSR (bumistan)´d never last for so long,
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

Disagree.

It is a historical fact that the world has never been ruled by the ruler of East Europe.

The Mongols and the Russians both produced mighty empires, the Mongols for about 100 years being the world's foremost.

But the Mongols at their height were nowhere near being commanders even of Asia. And Imperial Russia and the USSR were never even the commanders of Europe, although absent American presence the USSR might have been so after WW2.

The Mongols at their height owned China, Mongolia, much of Russia, practically all the 'stans' and well into Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

The Mongols at their height owned China, Mongolia, much of Russia, practically all the 'stans' and well into Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

I know what the Mongols ruled.

What they did not rule were any of what are now modern Saudi Arabia, India, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam,
Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Japan. Of these Vietnam accepted tributary status, only for the sake of
avoiding further invasion after repelling invasion.
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

The Mongols at their height owned China, Mongolia, much of Russia, practically all the 'stans' and well into Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

not true , Mongols have created what you call today "Russia"(Ulus of Juchi), which is even today a Mongol state, with great khan (czar) on the Top , and with the rest of population on the bottom of the backward, afro - Asian empire
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium



"Examining Mackinder's Heartland Thesis"
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

"Examining Mackinder's Heartland Thesis"

Why waste time on a useless theory?

Those States are totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. What matters more is Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

The "world" is no longer limited to a single landmass. Eastern Europe stopped being of any significance once the Cold War ended.
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

Why waste time on a useless theory?

Those States are totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. What matters more is Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

do you see geostrategy at large as an useless silence ?
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

The "world" is no longer limited to a single landmass. Eastern Europe stopped being of any significance once the Cold War ended.

why is this case USA/NATO and Muscovy fight each other in this part of the world (Ukraine) not in Syria or some other place ?
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

why is this case USA/NATO and Muscovy fight each other in this part of the world (Ukraine) not in Syria or some other place ?

Did the Cold War happen in Eastern Europe? Just in case you're not aware, the biggest conflicts eeree in Asia and South America.
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

Did the Cold War happen in Eastern Europe? Just in case you're not aware, the biggest conflicts eeree in Asia and South America.

the main front of CW was in eastern europe , for sure. dont you see that the Cold War was just second part of WW2?
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

do you see geostrategy at large as an useless silence ?

I'm quite familiar with US Geo-Political Strategy, and also quite repentant, since I probably signed the death warrant for Millions of Baluchs in Baluchistan.

The US has no focus on Eastern Europe, nor does it need a focus on Eastern Europe. The US is focused on Central Asia primarily.

Ultimately, the focal point of the World politically and economically will be the Indian Ocean Region. Eastern Europe is a non-factor. Both Europe and the US (including South America) will ultimately be on the periphery.
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

I'm quite familiar with US Geo-Political Strategy, and also quite repentant, since I probably signed the death warrant for Millions of Baluchs in Baluchistan.

The US has no focus on Eastern Europe, nor does it need a focus on Eastern Europe. The US is focused on Central Asia primarily.

Ultimately, the focal point of the World politically and economically will be the Indian Ocean Region. Eastern Europe is a non-factor. Both Europe and the US (including South America) will ultimately be on the periphery.

" Central Asia"(stans) are you sure?
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

" Central Asia"(stans) are you sure?

Absolutely.

Once the US has pacified Iran, it will have rail, highway and air access to Central Asia from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean Region. That will allow the US to exert its hegemony on Central Asia, and once the US gains control of Central Asia -- the soft under belly of Russia -- it will move to crush Russia.
 
Re: John Mackinder "Who rules East Europe commands the World" Heartland Theory/ Intermarium

Absolutely.

Once the US has pacified Iran, it will have rail, highway and air access to Central Asia from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean Region. That will allow the US to exert its hegemony on Central Asia, and once the US gains control of Central Asia -- the soft under belly of Russia -- it will move to crush Russia.

i have been there not much USA there today for sure



china, yes, Muscovy yes, USA...?
 
Back
Top Bottom