Grand Strategy 101

Thomas Bergman has a nice introduction to Grand Strategy at his substack. The piece has an unfortunately misleading title—even Bergman admits as much on Twitter, so I have no idea why he didn’t come up with a better title. Like his subtitle, which is pretty accurate:

Let’s consider the differences in Grand Strategy that play into tactical prowess

But I think my title gets to the heart of it. What Bergman offers is an intro to Grand Strategy as it’s commonly understood in geopolitical circles.

Before we get to the heart of Bergman’s presentation, however, I want to point out some important aspects of this matter that Bergman leaves out. Bergman righly identifies the inspiration for modern Grand Strategy with the ideas of Halford Mackinder, who formulated his Heartland Theory in 1904. Here are two representations of that theory in map form:

Of course what jumps out at you from these maps is that Russia is the Heartland.

Now, Mackinder wasn’t the first Brit to think in these terms—but he does get credit for formulating the theory in explicit terms. The view that Russia—master of the Eurasian Heartland—must be controlled and, if at all possible, be kept weak in relation to the British Empire has been part and parcel of British foreign policy for the better part of two centuries. It was known then as The Great Game. Here are the basic ideas involved, which show that the Russian concern with Western encirclement and aggression (and especially British—you’ll see that come up repeatedly in current Russian thinking) cannot be put down simply to Russian paranoia:

The Great Game was a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century between the British Empire and the Russian Empire over Afghanistan and neighbouring territories in Central and South Asia, and having direct consequences in Persia and British India.

Britain feared that Russia planned to invade India and that this was the goal of Russia's expansion in Central Asia, while Russia feared the expansion of British interests in Central Asia. As a result, there was a deep atmosphere of distrust and talk of war between two of the major European empires. Britain made it a high priority to protect all the approaches to India, while Russia continued its conquest of Central Asia. Some historians of Russia have concluded that after 1801, Russia had minimal intentions or plans involving India and that it was mostly a matter of British suspicions, although multiple 19th-century invasion plans are attested, including the Duhamel and Khrulev plans of the Crimean War (1853–1856), among later plans that never materialized.

According to one major view, Great Game began on 12 January 1830, when Lord Ellenborough, the president of the Board of Control for India, tasked Lord William Bentinck, the governor-general, with establishing a new trade route to the Emirate of Bukhara. Britain intended to gain control over the Emirate of Afghanistan and make it a protectorate, and to use the Ottoman Empire, the Persian Empire, the Khanate of Khiva, and the Emirate of Bukhara as buffer states blocking Russian expansion. …

This is not simply a matter of historical interest. In a very real sense, the Anglosphere—led now by the US and the UK, has stepped into the shoes of the British Empire and is pursuing goals that are not dissimilar to those of the Great Game: the encirclement and weakening of Russia. Think: Turkey in NATO, NATO expansion into Eastern Europe and the Baltics, attempted NATO expansion into the Caucasus (Georgia) and Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, attempted expansion into Central Asia, etc. Interestingly, the architect of the US version of Mackinder’s Heartland Theory and the Great Game strategy was Zbigniew Brzezinski who, it turns out (h/t Ray So-cal), has deep family roots (like other Neocons) in Western Ukraine.

With that intro, lets turn to Bergman. Follow the link for the full details. Here are excerpts that focus on the basics of Grand Strategy:

Around a hundred years ago, Halford Mackinder, a diplomat for the British Empire, developed the foundations for grand strategy.  Grand strategy refers to the general objectives that a state pursues in order to maintain its survival or to expand its potential power.  In Mackinder’s mind, the most important element of consideration was world geography, particularly the Eurasian continent.  He came up with the idea of Heartland Theory, which holds that a global hegemon must control the steppelands from Germany to the Ural Mountains in order to maintain itself.  Russia knew NATO troops in Ukraine and Poland was a great existential threat to its future in the region, and it knew that there would be problems if NATO were able to threaten them within the Heartland.  Thus removing the NATO threat in Ukraine, resulting from NATO supported and trained troops there, became a top strategic priority for Russia.

A visual depiction of the lines drawn by strategists.

Opposed to this general outlook was Nicholas Spykman, a Dutch geostrategist who immigrated to America and after America’s entry into World War II wrote about the importance of controlling the coastal areas of Eurasia he called the “Rimland.”  This was a result of his understanding of his reading of Alfred Taylor Mahan, a general officer in the US Navy who maintained that creating a network of ports around the globe would enable a navy and fleet of merchants to dominate the world.  For Spykman, this meant basing those ports on the Rimland, so that Eurasia could be managed and ultimately controlled from the Sea.  Thus the United States would be able to enforce its will through a network of favorable regimes in coastal areas across the world.  And so this resulted in the hundreds of American military bases as well as a close watch over countries like Britain, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Pakistan, just to name a few.  This has allowed the United States strategic depth in the global system.

In terms of military tactics, Bergman points out that the natural corrollary to this view of things is that Russia concentrates on land power (artillery, land transport), while the US focuses on projecting power by sea and air.

Has the Western corporate media ever explained this to you?  Do you think it’s a problem when the media can’t even explain to you basic parts of international politics?  It helps if you know that Russia and America are reading from the same playbook but are just choosing different plays.  These are all ideas and people with whom foreign policy figures are intimately familiar.  They are canon to them.

As a result of the Heartland strategy, we can see how Russia is using its forces on the Heartland to achieve an advantage on the battlefield.  Ukrainian forces are trying to use advanced Western weapons to defeat Russia, but those weapons cannot overcome the superior firepower of the Russian army.  As the battle continues, Russia just destroys all kinds of Western equipment and depletes the fighting force of Ukraine.  In fact, Ukrainian officials say that Russia now has at least ten times the firepower of Ukrainian forces.  This Russian advantage grows by the day as Russia also destroys Ukrainian supplies.

Bergman then goes on to explain, in some detail, that Western Europe is hopelessly unable to confront modern Russia. Moreover, he maintains that, short of maintaining a standing army of comparable size to Russia’s in Europe, the US is not in a practical position to enforce its will on Russia. The US strategy of nibbling around the edges, arming former Soviet states, is probably also doomed to failure. All of that was tried under the aegis of NATO from 1950 onwards, and has contributed mightily to the domestic problems that confront the American constitutional order. The post Cold War triumphalism that fueled American Neocon ambitions to become World Hegemon have turned to ashes.

By contrast, whereas the US has engaged in near constant warfare, waged with considerable brutality, Russia has been assiduously engaging in diplomacy—keeping active military measures to a minimum and abstaining from regime change.

As Russia depletes the West of their stockpile of weapons, we can see how Russia is also challenging US dominance in the Rimland, where the US Navy and trading network depends upon a certain amount of control to function.  Russia has already been assisting African countries in technical and security matters.  Russia also has been pursuing free trade deals with the UAE, Indonesia, Egypt, and Iran.  Saudi Arabia has not joined in support of the West in this conflict.  Iraq is closer to Iran, a Russian ally, than the West.  Japan has been backtracking and soft-pedaling.  Russia is stepping in to bail out Sri Lanka in their current crisis.  Ethiopia, Algeria, and Eritrea are also moving closer to Russia.  Not to mention the reality that the biggest Rimland country in the world, India, continues to pursue economic and military independence from the West in close partnership with Russia.  Russia seems very comfortable in the Rimland.

The West has also tried to defeat Russia in the war over the global economy by imposing sanctions to impoverish Russians and make them blame their president for something foreigners did to them.  The West wanted to make regime change occur in Russia thereby, but it seems as though Putin is evermore popular, with an approval rating above eighty percent.  Russian oil and gas revenues are increasing in this period of Russian patriotic renewal.  While the rest of the world is worrying about gas and oil prices and food shortages, the Russian nation sits upon its own supply of food staples and energy resources.  They are also working on the development of replacements of some specialty technology they had been buying from the West.  Their Heartland is increasing while the rest of the world worries about food and petrol.

The Western corporate media completely ignores these basic realities.  While they say Russia is suffering militarily and economically, we can see quite the opposite.  Russia continues to grind down the Western NATO proxies and volunteers on the battlefield, refining their methods by the day while their enemies run out of firepower and manpower.  ...  And the Eurasian Russian Heartland is secured with resources, while the West scrambles to jerry-rig whatever they can to fill the gaps of their own making.  This is turning into a Russian triumph and a Western defeat.  And Westerners have only their leaders and propagandists to blame.

So, keep all this in mind as the war continues. It seems to me that it’s high time that the US considered alternative strategies.