U.S. away match by his own rules

U.S. away match by his own rulesWhat factors determine U.S. strategy in Eurasia? Naturally, there is a wide and varying range of approaches lively Yankees to the current challenges in this large space. Together, it can be seen that more sustainable patterns and practices of Washington's policy in this part of the world shaped by a number of "Atlantic" geopolitical concepts of the XX century. I think, now it's time to get accustomed to them carefully.

"Geographic threat to world freedom '

Recognizable British geographer Halford Mackinder (1861-1947) adhered to the belief that the Heartland, by which he intended to interior space of the Eurasian continent, the main role belongs to the region in the global global processes. The main conclusion of the scholar who leads in the Heartland, at some point is going to dominate the world. Here, a closer look Mackinder called on the Russian Federation with its vast territories of Siberia and the Urals. Scientist aggressively advises the United States to move away from Eurocentric approach to politics in Eurasia, noting that "it is impossible to think about Europe" separately, for example, from Asia.

United States and Britain for Mackinder identified the "world order." According to the views of the British scientist, the main issue for the Anglo-Saxons should be to create a security zone between the continental forces in the face of Germany and the Russian Federation in the form of, certainly having the better of Germany and the Russian Federation municipal orientation. It should keep the political alignment with the U.S. and Britain.

The concept can come to the conclusion that our homeland, also in Germany have expressed some degree of development of the Eurasian idea. In one group of them are China and, perhaps, Iran (also partly included in the Heartland). Means for Mackinder, sanitary cordon impartially "necessary" and between Russia and China, Russia and Iran, China and Iran.

United States and England to promote the emergence of contradictions between the continental powers. To be restrained ambitions of Germany, joined forces with France and later with Russia, to build a new world order with "the leading role of the U.S. and the UK" with China.

Very fundamentally aware that Heartland is designated as a "threat to global geographic freedom." Hence the foreign policy approaches United States and Britain to countries placed on the ground Heartland. We give a tough recommendation: countries Eurasia should be "distant" from such influential continental powers like Europe (Germany where as before plays a major role in its integration) Our homeland, China. On the other hand — on his own political orientation close to the United States and England.

Mackinder one of the first to try to bring under some geopolitical categories ideological base — namely, the protection of democracy and peace. Do I need to remember, as is widely used by Western propaganda such an approach?

Building on sea power

The founder of the American school of geopolitics Alfred Mahan (1840-1914), who in their assessments adhered ideas of dignity and complete domination of a strong naval power, at a theoretical level, the United States argued for the importance of monitoring Rimland (English rim — edge, rim), under which it assumed coastal location in Eurasia.

U.S. away match by his own rulesLike Mackinder, Mahan proceeded from the thesis underlying the differences inherent in the development of sea-based and land-countries, arguing that the first model outperforms the second one. According to the views of the South American scientist, dignity maritime power, what are the U.S., linked to a number of impartial criteria established among the world's oceans in the form of greater mobility and independent movement of the economic benefits from it. Moreover, Mahan, commercial base sea forms the powers of her friendly nature, while land power is always different anger. With all this Mahan believes that "pressure from the sea to the land" should reduce the anger of the latter. According to Mahan, the desire to develop the country's maritime trade and consequently the fleet as communication bandwidth leads to the fact that the brand new formula of international leadership can be expressed in the following form: "Control of the sea […] means the dominant influence in the world."

Without hesitation, the United States Mahan seen as a leading maritime and means, and global power. He was confident that the actual interests of the United States meets active outdoor financial, political and military line, where the Navy has become a major driving force behind the strategy and its guarantor of success. Immediately American scientist defends the need for the United States manifestations of "political ambitions" at the global level. In the middle of arguments about the need for the U.S. is so over-active external policy are only economic judgments: the commercial interests, the growth of the industry, the need to protect zabugornyh markets.

Being a supporter of power — the military — measures to influence the world around us and at the same time supporting the idea of free trade, believing himself a "free trader by conviction," Mahan (as Mackinder and the other founders of the "Atlantic" school of geopolitics) highlights a contradiction not only own teaching, and the whole strategy of the United States, combining in itself the principles of realism and liberalism.

According to Mahan, liberalism does "support" functions in relation to the realism. Discourses on Commerce and its importance reduced from Mahan to the power factor, and advocated them so called open-door policy according to its own estimates is nothing more than another, as "another expression of the policy direction of balance." Highlighting the fact that the "external expansion" of the U.S., directly dependent on sea power, pursue political, economic and commercial, rather than military targets, Mahan aggressively defends the need for America to be prepared for an armed confrontation in at least some part of the world where it is interests.

For solving the problem of economic, political and military dominance in Eurasia Mahan considers appropriate to create a chain bases along the periphery of the continent. Here on the first foreground principal, principal strategic areas, for example, the crossing of transport and communication routes. Building on the ideas, Mahan puts more global puzzle in American politics — the formation of the support of the U.S. presence by "friendly regions" located around military bases. He rightly notes that "the base will be more stable if they lie on the ground or even neutral allied government." The scientist said that "offensive action on the energy" and "safety range of places available data resources." Such logic is fairly Mahan leads to strategic necessity for the United States control of naming the regions.

Mahan's approach as set out in the context of opposition to offshore and onshore areas of development of the countries, the allocation of those or other major regions in Eurasia, U.S. preparations for military action, l
ead to the conceptual definition of the unsafe potential enemy, which is the only continental (in the full sense of the word) Power — Our homeland.

In the middle of all the Asian Mahan pays most attention to China, in which south american scientist sees a lot of potential, noting the "enormous hidden strength of the Chinese character". Mahan allocates a geopolitical feature of China as the ability to influence not only in Asia, the Pacific, and on Europe. Scientist sees China as a future main object of the U.S. strategy against which to hold the line on economic inclusion, as referred to as an open door policy. Mahan emphasizes the need not to change the orientation of the development of China's marine to continental, gain exposure to it from some other outside of the country (meaning most likely Russia).

Who is in control of Eurasia controls the world

South american scientist Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943) developed the theory of Mahan, immediately under the influence of the teachings of Mackinder. The concept seems to be summed up Spykman a line under the geopolitical discussions beginning — middle of the XX century. It stands out from other concepts (for example, the same Mahan and Mackinder's) own large system, an attempt to discern the processes in the world on the basis of comprehensive analysis that takes into account a range of causes and their interdependence.

Using his own works, the term "geopolitics", Spykman makes it clear more sense if his predecessors in the American, British and German schools of geopolitics (many of which are generally avoided the expression). Geopolitical analysis by Spykman is important tool when considering the past, and the future of the real situation on the global and regional level, including security issues, the nature of the country, the balance of forces and interests, in fact the appearance of the prerequisites of war.

The main element of the whole concept Spykman was the concept of the Eurasian Rimland (or "marginal crescent" Mackinder). The structure of education betrothed geopolitical placed between the Heartland (as a central part of the continent), and washing the Eurasia seas Spykman including Western Europe, the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, the area of modern Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China and parts of Southeast Asia, Korea Peninsula and the Far East. Outside of this area, of course, remained island countries, including England and Japan.

Despite the fact that Spykman considers Rimland as a "buffer" space endowed with a function to protect themselves, both on land and at sea, he said it actually crucial to global processes. American scientist changed the formula of "world domination", derived its English officer Mackinder. According Spykman "who control Rimland — that controls Eurasia, who controls Eurasia — that holds the key to the fate of the world."

Contributing to the development of the theory of confrontation sea and land powers Spykman immediately puts emphasis on the fact that the possibility of any alliance of states such as the U.S., Britain and Japan, could lead to a possible likelihood of association of the continental forces in the face of the Russian Federation, Germany and China, who will feel in aggressive environments.

In this regard, the views Spykman for America is to combine the fundamental ways the sea (as air) and land influence processes in Eurasia. So, at that time considered a scholar even justified the need for a tight fit interaction between the United States, Britain and the Russian Union in the direction of control over events in the Rimland.

But, in general, breaking his theory in accordance with the South American state interests Spykman poses a number of challenges for the United States, the bulk of which is to prevent the risk of getting over the Rimland some other forces, apart from the United States. For the United States, "geographically surrounded by", and the resources of the Eastern Hemisphere gives enormous power to influence the Western Hemisphere. Combined same potential Eurasia will be able to "outweigh" the potential of America.

All this gives Spykman reason to believe that the security of the United States is inextricably linked to their active "participation in political life in Europe and Asia." The scientist focuses on the fact that, as in the ancient World, as well as on the Asian mainland United States must resist the emergence of hegemonic powers, "whose principles and standards contrary to the general context of the development of Western civilization." According to the views of Spykman in general for the U.S. topical is the need for "both in peacetime and in wartime," discourage "union power centers" of Eurasia in the coalition, aggressive South American interests.

Spykman considers to be the main tasks for the public interests of America need to maintain a balance of power on the Eurasian continent. In this process at least some sort of economic and political integration in this area may also be considered "hostile" to U.S. interests. It seems to be a proof of this Spykman notes that "the European Federation is not the entity that the United States should be encouraged." He is sure exactly balance of power in Europe, and not integration — that's what you need to the United States meet their needs. According to him, a federal Europe can potentially undermine the value of the U.S. as the Atlantic powers and weaken the very South American position in the Western Hemisphere.

In general, according Spykman, America is headed for "hegemonic position" only because the countries of the Eurasian continent, "have never been able to merge against us (U.S. — VP), and as concerns the balance of power at home even let them pick out a small portion of their forces to share across the Atlantic. "


Geopolitical concept of XX century to this day remain necessary in the United States and continue to influence the character of the U.S. strategy in Eurasia. Among them, highlights the concept of Mackinder, Spykman and Mahan. Despite the existence of some differences in approach, all of these scholars insist on the need for an active role in Washington's Eurasian events. This position is dictated by the relevant interests (economics, politics, ideology, etc.) dollars.

In the middle of states capable of forming Eurasian, and as it should, perhaps, focus on their own anti-American alliance, highlights our homeland, Germany, and potentially China. The most prominent representatives of the Atlantic School of Geopolitics conclude that the possibility of combining the efforts of these countries, for example in the case of their strategic alliance, could push the United States to the periphery of international life.

With all of this observed antagonism between the US-led line in the Atlantic and Eurasian continent-wide integration of the concept associated with America's first real fear to remain on the sidelines of the Eurasian and global economic and political processes.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: