It is a rare moment in history when a theory collapses not due to human folly but because the planet itself has rewritten the rules. Halford Mackinder, the grand prophet of geopolitics, built his famous Heartland Theory on a singular assumption: the Arctic was nature’s ultimate defense line, an impassable frozen moat sealing Eurasia off from the seas. The world wars, the Cold War, and America’s entire 20th-century strategic posture rested on this geographic certainty. And yet, as ice melts and new sea routes emerge, it appears the Arctic will not remain a frozen wasteland for much longer.
For over two centuries, Europe was the center of global conflict precisely because it was the gateway to Eurasia. Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, and Stalin all sought to control the land bridge between the Atlantic and the Russian steppes. The United States, inheriting Britain’s traditional role, spent the better part of a century ensuring that no one power dominated the European continent. But all of this was predicated on Mackinder’s frozen assumption—that Russia, despite its vastness, was permanently landlocked to the north. If this assumption no longer holds, then neither does the logic that Europe must always be the focal point of world affairs.
The Melting Arctic: The End of Mackinder’s World
The meltdown of the Arctic is not merely an environmental story—it is a geopolitical earthquake. Once a graveyard of explorers, the Arctic is now a highway in waiting, where new trade routes threaten to make the Suez and Panama canals relics of a warmer past. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) along Russia’s coast already shaves weeks off the journey from Shanghai to Rotterdam, while projections suggest a Transpolar Route over the North Pole itself could soon make conventional maritime trade lanes redundant.
The resources hidden beneath the ice are even more disruptive. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic holds 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its untapped natural gas, mostly within Russian and Canadian waters. That the next great energy war may be fought not in the Persian Gulf, but in the Barents and Beaufort Seas, is a prospect few Western policymakers seem willing to admit. Yet Russia already has the memo, having constructed new Arctic military bases, deployed nuclear-powered icebreakers, and tested hypersonic weapons over the polar region. The United States, meanwhile, has been caught flat-footed—perhaps because its strategists are still staring at Berlin, rather than looking north.
Enter the Realists: The Arctic as the New Pivot of Power
If the climate is undoing Mackinder, the realist school of American strategy has been quick to take notes. The grand master of this tradition, the late Andrew Marshall, spent over forty years shaping U.S. grand strategy from the shadows of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment. Marshall saw the world not through ideological illusions, but through the cold arithmetic of power. He believed that America’s survival depended not on spreading democracy or integrating itself into global institutions, but on securing technological, military, and geographic advantages over its rivals.
The new generation of Marshallian realists—those who are shaping the strategic vision of a potential Trump return—are applying his doctrine to the Arctic question. Peter Navarro sees trade not as an economic tool, but as a weapon of war, where the ability to strangle Canada’s economy could serve a larger strategic purpose. Michael Pillsbury, the China hawk, views the Arctic as yet another front in Beijing’s 100-year campaign to unseat the United States. Elbridge Colby, one of Washington’s leading defense thinkers, believes in shifting U.S. military priorities toward fortified geographic strongholds—Greenland, Canada, Alaska—rather than squandering resources defending an increasingly irrelevant NATO.
Trump’s Canada-Greenland-Panama Obsession: A Joke, or a Blueprint?
If Trump’s early rhetoric about buying Greenland, annexing Canada, or "taking back" Panama seemed like the ramblings of a real estate mogul mistaking the world map for a Monopoly board, recent events suggest otherwise. Beneath the bluster, there is a coherent strategic logic—one that, rather alarmingly, is being executed in slow motion.
Greenland, it turns out, is not some frozen afterthought but the world’s largest unsinkable aircraft carrier, perfectly positioned to dominate the Arctic and North Atlantic. The U.S. already maintains Thule Air Base there, but Trump’s failed 2019 bid to buy the island from Denmark was an early indicator that Washington wants full control. If the Arctic is to be America’s new military frontier, Greenland is its first bastion.
Canada, meanwhile, has the misfortune of being the world’s largest unguarded strategic asset. Militarily weak, economically dependent on the U.S., and controlling vast Arctic territories, it is now facing a steady American encroachment disguised as economic coercion. The Financial Times recently revealed that Trump’s inner circle is openly discussing expelling Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence alliance—a move designed to signal that Ottawa’s sovereignty is conditional upon absolute military alignment with Washington. Trudeau himself, caught on an open mic, admitted that Trump’s Canada annexation talk is "a real thing."
As for Panama, its canal remains the most strategically valuable artificial waterway in the world, linking the Pacific and Atlantic. That Trump has publicly floated "taking it back" suggests that, in the world of Strategic Realism 2.0, American naval dominance will not be left to treaty obligations.
The Birth of Strategic Realism 2.0
A second Trump presidency would not bring the end of the American-led order—but it would bring the end of its post-Cold War delusions. The new strategy taking shape is not isolationist, but brutally selective.
The first priority is to fortify North America. The old Arctic barrier is gone, and so the U.S. must build a new one—an Arctic Wall. Greenland will serve as the first line of defense, Canada as a subordinated buffer zone, and Alaska as the final military stronghold. The second priority is to refocus alliances away from NATO’s bureaucratic inefficiency toward a smaller, hard-power bloc in Eastern Europe, with Poland and the Baltics as the new frontline against Russia. Ukraine will be armed to the teeth, but denied full NATO membership, serving as a forward station rather than a fortress.
The third priority is to reorient U.S. military strategy toward the Indo-Pacific, using the "lily pad" basing strategy—a web of flexible, hard-to-target military outposts stretching from Thailand and the Philippines to Guam and Australia. But the final, most audacious goal of all is a Reverse Kissinger maneuver: breaking the China-Russia axis, as seen in the U.S. siding with Russia in a UN vote.. If America can secure a truce in Ukraine that Russia can live with, Moscow may find itself with little reason to continue its deepening alignment with Beijing.
A Post-Mackinder World: The Rebel Crowned King
History has a peculiar sense of humor. The United States began its rise not as an empire, but as its antithesis—a scrappy upstart throwing off the shackles of British monarchy with the help of French revolutionaries. It championed rebellion, distrusted kings, and styled itself as a liberator rather than a conqueror. But power, once attained, rarely permits its wielder to remain a mere idealist.
Two and a half centuries after declaring its independence, the old rebel has discovered the quiet pleasures of monarchy. In its early years, America warned against foreign entanglements; now it unravels alliances at will. It once spoke of self-determination; now it contemplates the selective absorption of weaker neighbors. The spirit of 1776, it seems, was not an argument against empire itself—merely against being ruled by the wrong one.
This is not a matter of hypocrisy—no empire in history has ever expanded while admitting that it was doing so. The British called their conquests “protectorates,” Rome spoke of “civilization,” and America—when it sets its sights on Greenland, Canada, or Panama—simply calls it “security.” The names change, but the script remains the same.
Nowhere is this clearer than in Trump’s Canada gambit. The former colony now eyes its northern neighbor not as an ally, but as an unfinished chapter of manifest destiny. Canada, which has spent two centuries cultivating a separate identity, now finds itself at a crossroads—a sovereign nation on paper, but one whose true independence may soon be decided in Washington, not Ottawa.
Related Articles:
.
In Episode 9 of Global Insights by Geopolitics.Asia, we delve into the shifting geopolitical landscape of the Arctic and the evolution of U.S. grand strategy. As ice melts and new sea routes emerge, traditional geopolitical assumptions are being upended, challenging old strategic norms. A key theme is Strategic Realism 2.0, a shift in U.S. foreign policy under a potential second Trump presidency. Moving away from NATO-centric alliances, this vision prioritizes Arctic dominance, securing control over Greenland, Canada, and key trade routes to shape global power structures. The Arctic is no longer an inaccessible frozen wasteland—it’s the next battleground for economic and strategic influence. Our expert guest, Kan Yuenyong from the Siam Intelligence Unit, examines NATO’s evolving role and whether Europe can achieve military independence without U.S. leadership. As the geopolitical map is redrawn, one question looms: Will the U.S. shape the Arctic frontier before rivals like China and Russia seize the opportunity?
Follow us both on Apple Podcast and Spotify Podcast.
コメント