Why US-led security alliances in Asia are losing coherence
The article, by Li Xing, argues that US-led security alliances in Asia are losing coherence due to enduring geopolitical principles, particularly Halford Mackinder's "heartland" theory. Mackinder's 1904 concept posits Eurasia as the central arena for global power competition, with control of its core, the "heartland," being decisive for world dominance.

Briefing Summary
AI-generatedThe article, by Li Xing, argues that US-led security alliances in Asia are losing coherence due to enduring geopolitical principles, particularly Halford Mackinder's "heartland" theory. Mackinder's 1904 concept posits Eurasia as the central arena for global power competition, with control of its core, the "heartland," being decisive for world dominance. The author contends that historical conflicts, from World Wars to the Cold War, and contemporary ones like those in Ukraine and Iran, demonstrate the continued geopolitical significance of this Eurasian heartland. This enduring geographical determinism, the article suggests, is a key factor influencing the shifting dynamics of international relations and the effectiveness of alliances in Asia.
Article analysis
Model · rule-basedKey claims
4 extractedMore recent conflicts, such as the Iraq war and current wars in Ukraine and Iran, also reinforce the idea that Mackinder’s heartland remains geopolitically decisive.
His dictum – “Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland/Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island/Who rules the World Island commands the world” – captures the essence of this geographical determinism.
Major global conflicts from the two world wars to the Cold War have indeed centred around or been deeply influenced by struggles over Eurasian dominance.
Eurasia as the central arena of global power competition is an enduring idea in geopolitics.