The New Cold War, Maps, and World War III

A quick history of Cold War geostrategy and how it maps onto great power conflict today

The notion that we are in a “New Cold War” has become commonplace. The authoritarian alliance between China, Russia, and Iran has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years, driven by their shared goal of challenging American hegemony.

Interestingly, future historians may not distinguish between the old and new Cold Wars but might instead view them as part of a single, prolonged conflict that ebbed and flowed in intensity over time, similar to the intermittent periods of war and peace during the Hundred Years' War.

Regardless of the label, the current struggle, which pits the US and its allies against China and its allies, has led to a growing bipartisan “China consensus“ amongst US policymakers. This consensus has emerged due to explicit expansionist rhetoric from the CCP, a Chinese foreign policy built around debt diplomacy and the undermining of US interests, and China’s deepening relationships with historical US adversaries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea.  

The growing China consensus also makes sense from a geographic perspective. This article will explore the original theories behind the Cold War containment doctrine and then discuss how those theories apply to today’s New Cold War, Taiwan, and the possibility of World War III.

The Eurasian Heartland

Let’s start with the father of geopolitics and geostrategy himself, Sir Halford Mackinder. Mackinder was a British geographer and politician who introduced the Heartland Theory in 1904. The theory argues that global dominance is determined by control over a single pivotal region of the world, which he termed the "Heartland." The Heartland roughly corresponds to Eastern Europe and the greater Central Asian steppe, including the Iranian plateau and the Tibetan Plateau, as shown below:

The theory is grounded in millennia of Eurasian history in which successive nomadic steppe peoples invaded and drastically reshaped the sedentary societies of surrounding agricultural civilizations. Some of these steppe invaders include the Yamnaya, Scythians, Xiongnu, Huns, Avars, Seljuks, Bulgars, Magyars, Mongols, Tatars, and the Timurids.

In fact, the reason Spain and India share a common Proto-Indo-European language ancestor is likely because of the success of the Yamnaya steppe nomads in spreading their culture and language from its Black Sea origins to the far reaches of Europe and northern India through conquest.

The “Eurasian highway”, connecting Eastern Europe to northeastern China

These successive steppe nomads were able to take advantage of the “Eurasian highway” to punch above their weight and repeatedly bring the strongest civilizations of the day to their knees. Mackinder’s central argument was that whoever controls the Heartland’s resources, transportation routes, and political power would have the necessary tools to dominate the world. Mackinder argued that advancements in 19th century technologies, particularly railroads, would diminish the importance of sea power and make land-based power more critical.

Mackinder developed the Heartland Theory in response to shifting geopolitical dynamics at the end of the 19th century, particularly the perceived decline of Britain’s maritime global hegemony in the face of the rising large continental powers of Germany and Russia. 

The theory was later succinctly summarized by Mackinder as:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world

In Mackinder’s terms, the “World-Island” refers to Eurasia, which today encompasses roughly 70% of both the world’s population and GDP. For Mackinder, controlling Eurasia was the key to controlling the world, and controlling the Heartland was the key to controlling Eurasia.

World War I erupted shortly after Mackinder’s theory was publicized, and the Eastern front struggle between Russia and Germany confirmed many of Mackinder’s ideas. In fact, much of the German reason for entering the war in the first place was the belief in an inevitable conflict with Russia over eastern Europe – a belief that had dominated German thinking since the unification of Germany in 1871.

Eastern Europe’s pivotal role was again demonstrated during World War II, when the overwhelming manpower and resources of the Soviet Heartland eventually overpowered the German war machine.

The Cold War that followed further highlighted the importance of Mackinder’s theory, as the Soviet Union, now firmly in control of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, vaulted to the top of the world’s most powerful countries, second only to the United States.

In fact, Soviet foreign policy and grand strategy in both Eastern Europe and Central Asia were largely driven by and tied to Mackinder's Heartland theory. Even today, the theory is an important driver of how Vladimir Putin views the world and Russia's role in it.

The Rimland

Many of my US and UK readers may be wondering, “Who cares about control of Eastern Europe and land power? Doesn’t this all pale in comparison to the importance of sea power?”

This line of thinking has a long line of adherents, from Thucydides in the ancient world to Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan in the modern world. Mahan was a contemporary of Mackinder’s, but Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, published in 1890, argued against the importance of land power and instead credited sea power with being the driving force behind successful grand strategy.

Mahan’s theories were widely embraced in both Britain and the US. Mahan even befriended US president Teddy Roosevelt and was a major influence on the development of the US as a naval power around the turn of the 20th century.

During the early years of World War II, the American political scientist Nicholas Spykman furthered Mahan’s emphasis on sea power and directly built on and critiqued Mackinder’s Heartland theory.

Spykman acknowledged the Heartland as a legitimate power center in Eurasia, but he argued that controlling it was not as important as controlling what he called the “Rimland” – the four major population centers surrounding the Heartland. These four major population centers are Western Europe, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and East Asia, as shown below:

Spykman argued that the Rimland had greater economic resources, access to seas, and potential for geopolitical influence compared to the Heartland. While the Heartland was largely landlocked and difficult to access, the Rimland was more exposed to both land and naval power, making it the key to controlling Eurasia and, ultimately, the world. Given the Rimland’s exposure to the sea, naval power was central to Spykman’s conception of what enabled global hegemony.

Spykman believed that by controlling the Rimland, a power could encircle the Heartland and project influence on a global scale. This theory significantly influenced Cold War strategy, particularly for the United States, which sought to contain the Soviet Union by forming alliances with Rimland countries.

The struggle between the Heartland and the Rimland offers a valuable framework for understanding the Cold War and the Kennanian containment approach the US took to contest the Soviet Union. Many of the major flashpoints of the Cold War, including in Central Europe, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea, occurred along the border between the Heartland and the Rimland, where these two spheres of influence collided.

The Map of the New Cold War

By superimposing modern borders on the prior graphic, we can now see why the partnership between Russia, China, and Iran is so consequential. Rather than three random countries in Eurasia, the Heartland framework shows that Russia, China, and Iran form almost the entirety of the perimeter of the Heartland, with just a small sliver of the perimeter in the south controlled by Pakistan and northern India.

Despite its smaller size compared to its peak during the Soviet years, Russia still controls the majority of the Heartland. Russia’s western regions border the European population center, and its eastern regions border the East Asia population center. China straddles the southeastern edge of the Heartland and borders both the East Asia and Indian population centers. Iran straddles the southwestern edge of the Heartland and borders the Middle Eastern population center.

Both China and Iran are in prime geographic positions to have strong influence over their respective Rimland population centers. From a geographic perspective, there are likely no two greater allies that Russia could have chosen than Iran and China to pursue the goal of consolidating and expanding the influence of the Heartland.

In addition to the purely geographic reasons for an alliance, the military and economic power of China brings a ton of geopolitical capital to the table as well. China’s Belt and Road Initiative, for example, is in many ways an attempt to put into practice Mackinder’s theory that technological advancements in overland transportation and communication will put a premium on land power. China’s buildout of Heartland infrastructure will put that theory to the test.  

The map above also sheds light on many of the US’ top foreign policy priorities, including strengthening NATO, countering Iran in the Middle East, strengthening ties with India, and countering China in the south and east China seas. These four priorities each correspond to one of the four Rimland population centers and all are aimed at countering the growing influence of the Heartland Triumvirate of China, Russia, and Iran.

As with the first Cold War, much of America’s foreign policy in the New Cold War will center around containing the Heartland by strengthening ties with the Rimland and, ideally, driving a wedge between the Heartland powers. During the first Cold War, the Heartland wedge played out as the Sino-Soviet Split, which the US helped foster during the 1970’s under Kissinger and Nixon. Time will tell how and if the US and its allies will be able to once again force a wedge between China and Russia, and whether the newest member of the club, Iran, can likewise be pried away from the new Triumvirate.

How Does Taiwan Play Into All of This?

At the risk of oversimplifying, the map below shows the current rough border between the Heartland and Rimland, including Iran’s proxy states of Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon in the Middle East, and the full extent of mainland China and North Korea in East Asia. The US’ two major Cold War engagements of Korea and Vietnam both fall exactly on this border, as do the New Cold War proxy wars of Ukraine and Israel.

Taiwan also falls directly on this border. In addition to its immense historical and psychological significance and its immense economic significance, Taiwan’s location as a border region between the Heartland and the Rimland adds even more importance to an otherwise already pivotal region of the world.

An endless number of commentators have noted that Taiwan could be the flashpoint that turns the New Cold War into World War III. The Heartland / Rimland framework provides yet another reason why Taiwan could be that flashpoint. From this perspective, Taiwan is not merely a Chinese special interest, but is instead the latest battleground in the longstanding struggle between the Heartland and the Rimland. For the US to avoid World War III, a focus on deterrence in and around Taiwan is of critical importance.