Blog

If we take a look at a globe, we will see that our planet is a sea world dominated by two large islands. To be precise, one large and one smaller. The large island is the complex of Eurasia with Africa, what the British geopolitical theorist Sir Halford Mackinder called the “World Island” and the smaller one is the American continent. Based on Anglo-Saxon geopolitical concepts, the dominant landmass of the world is the World Island while the American continent is a secondary area, dependent on the World Island. Again based on Anglo-Saxon geopolitical concepts, the key continent in this complex is Eurasia, while the existential core of Eurasia is the space that Mackinder refers to as the Heartland and which is essentially identified with Russia and Russia’s near abroad.

However, although Eurasia is the center of the world, until today the existence of the Arctic ice sheet essentially cut it into two pieces and made the planet's great oceans the main channels of communication between its western and eastern parts.
And the oceans are controlled by the United States.

Thus, the sovereign country of the second largest island on the planet, that is, the American continent, by controlling the open ocean areas, became the most important country in the world, despite being in a peripheral position.

Today, however, things seem to be changing. A combination of geographical, technological and political factors threatens to create a potentially geopolitical reality unprecedented in human history.

THE MELTING OF THE ARCTIC ICE AND A UNITED EURASIA
The first of these factors is the apparent melting of the Arctic ice sheet. Here we should point out that when we refer to the melting of the Arctic ice, we do not mean its complete disappearance, but the reduction of its sheet to such an extent that it is manageable throughout the year by Russian icebreakers.

The potential consequences of this development are expected to be cosmogenic.

Here we will limit ourselves to mentioning that one of the consequences of this possible development is that a new sea route is created, allowing communication between the eastern part of Eurasia and the western part, without necessarily needing open ocean areas.

We could say that a kind of expressway is being created around Eurasia and more generally around the Eurasia-Africa complex, which consists of the nearby waters on the periphery of the two continents. This corridor is complemented by the network of closed seas inside the World Island, specifically the Baltic, the Black Sea and mainly the Mediterranean Sea, which constitutes, in a way, the inner courtyard of the World Island. That is, its center. And the center of the center is the Eastern Mediterranean.

We are therefore faced with the possibility of creating a new geopolitical space, consisting of the regional waters around Eurasia and Africa and the enclosed seas within this network. Therefore, a key strategic stake in the coming decades is who will control this space and especially its center, which is the Eastern Mediterranean.

Until recently, the answer to this question would have been easy. The United States. That is, the pre-eminent naval power on the planet. However, in recent years, dramatic changes in the art and technology of war, mainly coming from China, have changed this fact.

Specifically, for its own reasons, China has developed weapons systems and warfare methodologies aimed at challenging the naval power of the United States precisely in the near waters around Eurasia. These capabilities are characterized by American experts with the acronym HEAT (High End Asymmetrical Threats) and are based on the creation of anti-access and area-denial (anti-access area-denial {A2/AD}) networks that seek to turn the advantages of the US Navy into disadvantages in coastal waters and to drive American warships deep into the safety of the oceans.

Further examination of these capabilities is beyond the scope of this presentation. Here we will limit ourselves to saying that the spearhead of these efforts is the development of ASBMs (anti-ship ballistic missiles), i.e. specialized ballistic missiles, capable of attacking surface ships on the move. The most famous representative of these missiles is the infamous Dong Feng 21D, which is characterized as an 'air carrier killer'.

Most importantly, these capabilities are not exclusive to China, nor do they require any particularly advanced technologies to develop. States like Iran have already begun to invest in them, while it is a given that Russia possesses the highest technology in the relevant fields, so it is able to develop land-to-sea power projection networks superior to those of China or anyone else.

THE END OF OCEAN DOMINANCE AND THE MARGINALIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES?
So, we could say that, from a geostrategic point of view, the world's seas tend to be divided into two parts. In the open ocean areas, where the United States continues to have control, and in the near waters in the periphery and interior of the World Island, where sovereignty is being claimed by the land-based Eurasian powers, namely Russia and China, which are turning into a kind of hybrid powers with mixed land and sea elements.

Essentially, the World Island, combined with this new marine system of near-peripheral waters and closed seas, is somehow cut off from the open oceans and creates a kind of autonomous world within the planet. 

But this is a potentially very negative development for the United States. As we said before, based on the very Anglo-Saxon geopolitical concepts, the entire American continent is a secondary landmass, dependent on Eurasia. Consequently, if the United States is not able to take decisive actions in Eurasia, then it is doomed to be marginalized.

Under normal circumstances, they could resort to the strategy of their British forefathers. That is, the divide and rule that Great Britain implemented throughout the so-called Westphalian system from 1648 until World War I.

But here comes a third factor. The economic, political and military weakening of the United States that has occurred in recent years. After the fifteen-year endless and chimerical “War on Terror,” which sucked up American military power, drained the American treasury and led to the fiasco of Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States does not seem to have either the power to impose its sovereignty on key points in Eurasia by force or the money to buy alliances and partnerships, as they did in the past.

The combination of these three factors threatens to lead to the realization of a geopolitical nightmare for the Americans. The creation of an autonomous World Island, cut off from the oceanic system of power projection and which they will no longer be able to control through either hard or soft power, while they will find it difficult to implement the traditional British policy of selective and non-permanent rivalries and alliances in order to prevent the creation of a dominant Eurasian power.

We are therefore tempted to think that in order to escape this impasse, the United States may implement a scorched earth policy in key areas of the World Island. That is, to seek the destruction of state entities located in critical areas of the international system, so as to create “black holes” of chaos, fluidity and ambiguity and consequently prevent the countries of these areas from forming alliances and cooperation with the great Eurasian powers, pre-eminently Russia. In other words, the United States, since it cannot control certain key areas, may prefer to destroy them so that no one else can control them.

And as we said above, the most important point of this new autonomous World Island is its center, that is, the Eastern Mediterranean. Within the framework of this logic, the seemingly paranoid policy of the United States in the Middle East towards ISIS is probably understandable, where on the one hand they fight it and on the other hand they support it, either directly or indirectly, turning against its most important opponents and especially against Russia.

For its part, Russia, both in the Eastern Mediterranean and in the Eurasian region in general, would probably like to see stabilized state entities, with competitive relations between them, but solid and self-evident, so that it can exploit its central geographical position in Eurasia and confront them with the dilemma that if they do not move forward with a cooperative relationship with Moscow, their rivals will move forward and gain an advantage in their competition with each other.

For example, if India were to pivot geopolitically toward the United States, Moscow could provide Pakistan with advanced military equipment, changing the balance of power in the Indian subcontinent. Similarly, if China were to attempt to assume a dominant role in the Sino-Russian system, Moscow could drastically strengthen its relations with India, forming a counterweight to Beijing.

Therefore, for Russia, chaotic wars, such as the one being waged in Syria, which dismantle state entities valuable to its future geopolitical strategy, are in principle harmful situations that should cease to exist and peace should prevail.

On the contrary, for the United States, such conflicts, which destroy the unity of the autonomous World Island, dissolve its basic components, namely the compact states, and prevent the creation of a dominant Eurasian power, are a positive situation that should be strengthened. 

In other words, even if we consider that, indeed, what is happening in Syria is the competition of hegemonic powers, the fact remains that one of these powers promotes a geopolitical strategy that presupposes the existence of solid and stable states, while the other seeks the existence of destroyed states, which will not allow Russia to create the architecture it wants in its region.  

Of course, this theory may seem to many to be the product of conspiracy thinking. First of all, however, I am not referring to certainties but to probabilities. Nor am I referring, necessarily, to a conscious and organized plan, which was drawn up by cynical and wise think tanks in some dark rooms of Washington. On the contrary, I am talking about an impersonal reaction, which arises almost automatically on the part of the United States, due to the drastic changes in the international system that we described above, in the same way that the friction of tectonic plates produces seismic vibrations.

In any case, all of the above may be completely wrong. However, I believe that they offer us an alternative view of what is happening in our neighborhood and a new field of reflection. Because, if there is indeed even the slightest possibility that powerful Western centers of power may have invested in the destruction of state entities in key parts of Eurasia, so as not to create a single geopolitical edifice in it, then it is by no means certain that they will stop in Syria. The more failed countries there are in the Eastern Mediterranean region, the better for them. And this is something that should seriously concern us.

(*) Konstantinos Grivas is an Associate Professor of Geopolitics at the Hellenic Military Academy. He also teaches Geography of Security in the Greater Middle East at the Department of Turkish and Contemporary Asian Studies at the University of Athens.
The above text constitutes the undersigned's presentation at the international scientific conference on "Russia's role in establishing peace and security in the Mediterranean", held by the Department of Russian Language and Literature and Slavic Studies and the Department of Turkish and Modern Asian Studies of the University of Athens, on December 19, 2016 at the "Alkis Argyriadis" amphitheater in the central building of the University of Athens.