Opinion

Why US-led security alliances in Asia are losing coherence

Conflicts in Ukraine and Iran have returned strategic focus to the idea of Eurasia as central to the global power contest, challenging the viability of the Indo-Pacific pivot

3-MIN READ3-MIN

Listen

Li Xing is a Yunshan leading scholar and a distinguished professor at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, and an adjunct professor of international relations at Aalborg University, Denmark.

Published: 5:30am, 27 Apr 2026Updated: 7:29am, 27 Apr 2026

Geopolitics, at its core, examines how geography shapes international politics, power distribution and security dynamics. One enduring idea is geographer Halford Mackinder’s “heartland” theory, which situates Eurasia as the central arena of global power competition.

In 1904, Mackinder argued that the vast land mass of Europe and Asia – what he called the “world island” – contained a pivotal core, the “heartland”, rich in resources, population and strategic depth. 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.

Mackinder’s theory finds striking resonance. 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. More 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.