Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Defence and security / / Articles
Geopolitical models, Mackinder, H. and N. Spikman in US foreign policy in the late XX – early XXI centuries.
Material posted: Publication date: 31-10-2016
Geopolitics is one of the directions of political geography. It examines the dependence of foreign policy of individual States and international relations as a whole system of political, economic and military-strategic relations, due to the geographical situation of the country and other physical - and economic-geographical factors. Its main objective is the development strategy of the state. To understand the importance of geopolitics in today's world on the theories of scientists H. Mackinder and N. Spykman who received their visual embodiment in the early twenty-first century.

The Englishman Halford Mackinder (1861-1947) was from the first scientist that developed in the early twentieth century a global model, which had a significant impact not only on British, but on American strategic thought. H. Mackinder formulated four basic principles of its geopolitical beliefs:

  • Geopolitical factors have a direct impact on the course of historical process;
  • Geographical location largely determines the potential strength, or, conversely, the weakness of the States;
  • Technical process changes geographical "environment" and reflects – positively or negatively – on their potential power;
  • Eurasia has a strategic influence on global political processes [1, p. 53].

The Helford Mackinder formulated the concept of "heartland" (heart of the earth). Under the heartland understood Eurasia, which was estimated as a giant natural fortress, inaccessible to Maritime empires and rich natural resources. According to H. Mackinder, coast of Eurasia form "the inner Crescent" and the Islands and continents beyond the "outer Crescent". Europe, Asia and Africa he was included in the "World Island" [1, p.59].

A special place within the boundaries of the heartland played in Russia. She, according to Mackinder, "axis of history". Hence the well-known thesis: "he who controls the heartland, who controls the whole world." Based on this concept, H. Mackinder feared the strengthening of Russia's position on the Eurasian continent, the creation of a coalition with Germany. Assessing the geopolitical future of Germany, H. Mackinder believed that it could become the dominant force in the world only if its disposal will be Russian resources. This would allow her to combine advantages of continental and sea power [2].

The main task of the British geopolitics Mackinder was not to allow the formation of a strategic continental Alliance around the "geographical axis of history". In his opinion, States "outer Crescent" should strive to detach from the heartland high coastal spaces and put them under his control. In 1943 H. Mackinder predicted the global conflict as a confrontation between the "Central mainland", which was associated with the Soviet Union, and the powers of the "outer Crescent" - the US, Britain and Japan. In its geopolitical will of H. Mackinder urged Western leaders to unite and work together to confront communism [1, p. 61].

Famous American geopolitician Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943), was developed the theory of H. Mackinder, somewhat modifying it. If H. Mackinder from the confrontation between Maritime and continental forces brought the advantages of the heartland, the American geo-politician drew attention to the "inner Crescent," which he called "Rimland" (coastal zone). Using the Rimland, Specmenu, is the "great sea route". In Rimland geographical history is not caused by an external impact, the historical process there caused by internal reasons. This implies not only self-sufficiency Rimland, but his dominance in the world. Having reached this conclusion, Spikman altered the geopolitical theory that Mackinder, writing: "Who controls the Rimland dominates Eurasia, who dominates Eurasia, holds the world's fate in their hands." In addition, Spekman have identified the world's three major centers of power. This is the Atlantic coast of North America, the European coast and the far East. In the future, he admitted, it may occur that the fourth center of force India [2].

The war in Afghanistan

Confirmation of the theories of Mackinder and H. N. Spikman we find in the politics of the USA held around the world in the last 20 years. A good example is the war in Afghanistan in the early twenty-first century. According to the theory of Mackinder H. the state is in the area of the inner Crescent. Control of Afghanistan gives the US a huge geostrategic and economic benefits:

  • First, it is very comfortable, virtually unlimited by any agreements or treaties, a platform for deploying all types of weapons, including nuclear. Here it is possible to exert pressure on Pakistan, creating a situation of instability. And in Pakistan it is possible to affect China and India. Also next to Iran and access to the Caspian sea. For the USA this region is an important bridgehead. From here, you can, and attack, and just pressure the military their presence alone.
  • Secondly, Afghanistan is one of the resource pantries of the world.
  • Thirdly, Afghanistan is a key communications hub in the region [3, p. 633].

Swiss journalist R. Labeviere published the documentary book "Dollars of terror. The United States and the Islamists". It proved that in Afghanistan, the Americans received the profits from marcoaurelio "business" and the financing of terrorists. This is one of the main goals of the war. Counting profits, financial institutions continue to exert maximum pressure on the policy of the US administration and public opinion [4].

The war in Iraq

That brought US 9-year war in Iraq – victory or defeat?

The answer depends primarily on what you consider the purpose of the war. If you believe the US version is about "building a democratic state" in Iraq, America, the war is clearly lost. However, judging by the real interests and objectives which the United States pursued in Iraq, the outcome can be considered a victory – although not as convincing as we would like Washington. The strategic objective was to turn major state (the most important for the United States region) at vassal intermediary, and to gain thus a key political and military foothold in the middle East, on the border with staunch adversaries Iran and Syria. This General purpose includes: to be put in charge of the state a group of obedient leaders; to create a loyal military units; to gain control over oil reserves – the third largest in the world; to open the local economy to capitalism, making it a "free market"; to create a new market for American arms [5, p. 494]. All of this together on the official foreign language of the USA is called "nurture a strategic ally in the heart of the Middle East."

Thus, according to the main criteria, United States of America have their real, in contrast to the publicly stated goals in Iraq.

The civil war in Libya and the role of energy in politics

The revolution in Libya cost the United States, although the entire dirty job for the most part executed by the hands of their European partners. But what is the US interest in this conflict? After all, Libyan oil and Libyan gas does not need US. The reason for that is China. China – the first economy in the world. The US, on the contrary, with the economy problems. Hot financial war requires decisive action. This is the root cause of all the happening in world events. China has only one weak spot – resources. To save the economy of China can only resources of the Russian Far East and Eastern Siberia. Now China gets favorable conditions and Russian oil and gas as well as electricity. The current leadership of Russia will never destroy your Treaty with China. In spring 2011, NATO began operations in Libya, where the original system bringing down Gaddafi, they thereby disrupted the police barrier in Europe before a powerful stream of refugees from Africa [6].

During the "cold war" in the West there was a whole series of ideological doctrines, which served as a justification for anti-Soviet political course. One of the authors of such developments was the American scientist and statesman of Polish origin Zbigniew Brzezinski. He justified the so-called strategy of "vulnerabilities", the essence of which was to identify weaknesses of a potential enemy and turning them into serious problems. The strategy was allowed to distract the main forces of the enemy from the real confrontation with the United States and force it to focus all resources on solving their own growing difficulties. The result of extensive analytical work were identified and systematically studied the "vulnerabilities" of the USSR in the political, economic, ideological and other fields [3, p. 459].

The main "bottleneck" of the Soviet country, as identified by the CIA, was its economy. After detailed modeling of American specialists showed her the "weak link", namely the higher the dependence of the budget of the USSR from energy exports. Was formed the strategy of provoking the financial and economic bankruptcy of the Soviet state, for two interrelated objectives: organization of the sharp decline of revenue in the budget of the USSR foreign trade, combined with the significant increase in the cost of solving the problems organized from outside. As the main measures to reduce the revenue side of the budget was considered, the decline in world oil prices. This was achieved by the mid 80-ies, when as a result of US collusion with the rulers of oil-producing countries, the market formed an artificial surplus of raw materials and oil prices fell by almost 4 times.

The growth of expenditure of the Soviet Union was provoked in several areas: the transition from the strategy of American opposition to the USSR in Afghanistan to the strategy of his deep involvement in the Afghan war; inciting anti-government protests in Poland and other countries of the socialist camp to encourage Moscow to additional costs to stabilize the situation in Eastern Europe; the unwinding of the arms race and so on.

I should say that the Americans managed to achieve their goals. The result of their activities was the significant increase in expenditures of the USSR over income, which ultimately provoked a profound economic crisis, impacting on the political and ideological sphere. Short-sighted attempts of the Soviet leadership to alleviate the situation through external financial assistance to give Washington additional leverage over Moscow.

According to American experts, the strategy of "vulnerabilities", which demonstrated the enormous economic efficiency varieties the "cold" war over war "hot" to a great extent contributed to the dissolution of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact [7, p. 246].


An active policy of "containment" of Russia is carried out not only by conflicts in the East. In the sphere of interests overseas "partners" and their supporters are European countries. A good example is the events in Yugoslavia of the late XX – early XXI centuries Defiantly hack the cornerstone of the whole global political system – the Yalta agreement of 1944 and, more importantly, the Helsinki agreement of 1957 concerning the immutability of the post-war settlement in Europe – one of the main tasks "of the Yugoslav events." As in all previous conflicts, the United States wisely used the experience gained in Vietnam. Among the military goals of NATO was to test the new precision weapons, new aircraft systems and weapons, working out the tactics of their combat use, organisation of different forces involved in the operation, as well as the consumption of the accumulated obsolete weapons. NATO used banned military means and weapons such as cluster bombs. On the territory of Yugoslavia was dropped 152 of the container with cluster bombs. In a result, more than 5 million residents were left without electricity and water, and material damage to Yugoslavia totalled over $ 200 billion. [8]. The war in the Balkans can be considered as rehearsal and prologue for large steps the United States for the redivision of the world.


A quarter of a century, the US achieved a complete separation of the former Soviet republics from Russia. The Ukrainian crisis has become quite an expected result of systemic activity of the U.S. and its closest allies. Activities are aimed at a complete separation of Ukraine from Russia, total reformatting of the post-Soviet space under American interests. Created the conditions and pretexts for revolution, which ensured generous state funding. Only according to open sources, such as documents of Congress, the total amount of state funding for various American programmes of "aid" to Ukraine for the period from 2001 to 2012 amounted to not less than 2.5 billion U.S. dollars. This compares with an annual budget of some small countries. The result of this activity in Ukraine had grown a whole generation, completely poisoned with hatred of Russia and the mythology of "European values". No one is going to raise the level of living in Ukraine or to place this youth in Europe. Regardless of future developments, the significance for each other – Russia and Ukraine – will continue. Ukraine will not be able to successfully develop without Russia. If the catastrophe in Ukraine did not happen, there would be another reason for the intensification of a policy of "containment" of our country. This course is faithfully carried out for many years, changing only the forms and tactics of its implementation [9]. The coup in Kiev, perfect with explicit support from the United States, held by the classical scheme, piloted in Latin America, Africa and the middle East. But never has such a scheme would not affect you so deeply Russian interests.

"Hornet's nest" or the aggravation of the situation in the East

Washington didn't even try to hide the fact that the forces of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition, which includes ISIS, is trying to overthrow the current government in Syria. To achieve this goal, the States have supplied weapons to the rebels, with the help of their trainers trained them in military Affairs. However, having at your disposal a considerable amount of military equipment and weapons, ISIS went their own, different from the plans of Washington, by. An unfortunate error on the part of U.S. foreign policy, released the "Genie" whose back "drive into the light" seems to be very difficult. Military experts, political analysts, journalists, including the United States, are United in the opinion that the creation of ISIS directly or indirectly involved in US policy in the middle East. This is even claiming high-ranking officials of the White house. For example, the former US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said that the ISIL is a historical mistake of Washington. Mangled a lot of firewood and brew another middle East mess, the West seems doomed and, perhaps, powerless in the face of this threat.

No need to mention how many of the coalition created by the United States against ISIS, in fact, helped the organization further expand. The establishment of the Caliphate and of the great masses of radicals was necessary to resolve at least three geopolitical problems:

  • First, to strike at Russia as the main military opponent.
  • Second, to strike at China as the main economic rival.
  • Thirdly, for the destruction of the European Union, in which the first violin playing of the Franco-German Alliance, not Anglo-Saxon.

Along with the ISIS militants in parallel, there are many various forces, factions and coalitions, including the Taliban, the Kurds, the representatives of the "moderate Syrian opposition" as well as the armed forces of various States. That is why the discussion on international responsibility for civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure doesn't make sense as to define right and wrong impossible. As it is impossible and creation of a coalition between Russia and the United States, as countries have differences about the conflict and further plan of action in Syria [10].

Reasonable politicians and even ordinary people it was clear long ago. NATO countries are testing all kinds of weapons with international terrorist organizations. These organizations, and terrorism itself have no relation to Islam and the Middle East. "Hornet's nest" in the middle East – the result of a deliberate policy of the White House and financial companies.

Europe: the refugee problem

USA gave a good gift Europe in the form of "Islamic arc of instability" in North Africa and the middle East. United in a single territory "controlled chaos" under the supervision of the United States, this education can give plenty of resources for military and religious expansion anywhere near its borders. All of Europe, Iran and India have received a powerful external enemy on its borders.

On the background of the atrocities of the "Islamic state", terrorist attacks in France and in the United States intensified anti-Muslim sentiment. On television, politicians, among ordinary citizens increasingly are Islamophobic statements.

This is the goal of ISIS to try to provoke the society in the West, hatred against millions living in Europe and USA Muslims [11].

Events in Europe – it is the next provocation of special services, which gives the authorities an excuse to implement his evil plan for the adoption of repressive measures against immigrants. But in General, there is an undeclared war against Islam. It clearly shows that the leaders of the various countries do not want the spread of Islam in their countries and take it as a threat to the state. The spread of Islam not only in Europe but throughout the world – a natural process. However, this process had to continue its special service, it seems, are ready for any provocation until another American attack on their twin towers, which became the reason to sink in the blood of Afghanistan.

The analysis shows that by provoking Europe to retaliate so as the Americans pursue the same goals as in 80-e years of the XX century against the Soviet Union. As then, they try to determine the "vulnerabilities" of its competitors. At the same time, by the way, solves the problem of neutralization of economically strong countries, too, according to Washington, samishisa with Moscow.

Many American experts argue that "under the rule of Moscow" was such a huge area that she is unable to master and that, therefore, "do not serve the interests of all mankind." Continue sounding claims about the "unfair" distribution of natural resources and the need to ensure the so-called "free access" to them of other States.


1. Geopolitics H. Mackinder and N. Spykman developed a global geopolitical model, the essence of which expresses the thesis: "Who controls the "Rimland" (i.e., coastal area), that dominates Eurasia, who dominates Eurasia, holds the world's fate in their hands."

2. Based on the theories of H. Mackinder and N. Spykman, the main goal of contemporary U.S. foreign policy is to own the world. Under the possession of the world refers to the possession of resources. Hence the main cause of modern conflicts: the struggle for resources and the provision of geopolitical influence in the country. U.S. policy aims to to weaken the leading countries of Eurasia, i.e. the area of the "heartland."

3. Proof theory H. Mackinder and N. Spikman are military conflicts of modern times, which involved the United States. Consequently, theories and models of Western geopolitics scientifically justify the inevitability of wars in the early 21st century and help US to seek possession of the world and resources.

4. New world order, which wants to build the USA is a war-torn Russia destroyed China, captured by radicals in the middle East and North Africa weakened in the fight against "radical Islam" Europe. This development will be on hand only the United States and the British Commonwealth, which the General background arranged "controlled chaos" will to achieve incredible power.


  1. Kolosov V. A., Mironenko N. With. Geopolitics and political geography: Textbook for universities. – M.: "Aspect Press", 2005. – 479 p.
  2. Dugin A. osnovy geopolitiki. [Electronic resource] / URL: http://
  3. Mukhaev R. T. Geopolitics. – M.: "unity-Dana", 2010, - 839 S.
  4. Fursov A. R. Labeviere. Dollars of terror. The United States and the Islamists. [Electronic resource] / national Cathedral. URL:
  5. Nartov N. A. Nartov V. N. Geopolitics. Textbook for high schools. M.: "Unity-Dana", 2013. – 639 p.
  6. Ershov D. Why war in Libya?! New world "order". [Electronic resource] / URL:
  7. Dugin A. G. Geopolitics. – Moscow: Gaudeamus, 2011. – 583 p.
  8. Nezavisimoe Voennoe obozrenie. [Electronic resource] / URL: http//www.nvo.EN
  9. Komleva N.. Ukrainian crisis as an element of "Anaconda tactics". [Electronic resource] / URL: http//www.cyberleninka.EN/article
  10. Chernykh E. ISIS still lives with US. [Electronic resource] / URL:
  11. Odintsov V. United States and the problems of European refugees. [Electronic resource] / URL:

Eduard Chesnokov

RELATED MATERIALS: Defence and security
Возрастное ограничение