Kimberly Daniels, a member of our Emerging Fellows program envisions a transformation scenario within Eurasia’s Heartland alternative futures through her ninth blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.

A transformation scenario for Eurasia’s Heartland in 2050 could play out as a future in which the U.S., Russia, and China abandon Mackinder’s Heartland Theory for a new way forward. In this alternative future, the three powers shift from competitive geopolitical positioning for domination of the Heartland to cooperation to empower the Heartland. They also advance culturalization as a critical aspect of connected BRI trade. Characterized by a territorial approach to Heartland power and a multipolar world order with wins and losses, this scenario considers geo-cultural identity as a key change driver.

By 2050 in this scenario, the U.S., Russia, and China have come to terms with the futility of continued geopolitical positioning in Afro-Eurasia based on Mackinder’s Heartland Theory. They accept that no power play to affect a geographical pivot to a Heartland power — neither the Crimean War, Nazi Germany, Cold War I, nor China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) — resulted in realities that aligned with assumptions.

The BRI, while potentially profitable for China, remained fraught with contempt from the international community for two widely-known reasons. Infrastructure development loans either indebted disadvantaged countries to China or economically colonized them to bend to her influence. And though China may have assumed the BRI would position her as the world’s next superpower, some believed her intention was to expand as a great civilization state. However, the U.S., Russia, and India, as well as concerned regional stakeholders, regarded it as a play for dominance in and control of the Heartland.

Despite facilitating connected trade, the BRI amplified existing and provoked new geopolitical hostilities. Deadlier border conflicts over colonial-influenced territorial boundaries erupted between China and India and among the Caucasus over ethnic, cultural, and territorial disputes. Wars on various fronts intensified, some still motivated by disdain for U.S. and Russian interference in Middle Eastern affairs. Territorial turf wars exploded among Russia and former Soviet Eastern European states and ignited between Russia and China in Central Asia. These power struggles in and for the Heartland had devastatingly disruptive local, regional, and global impacts. They were condemned by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as crimes against Heartland security.

For the U.S., Russia, and China, adhering to the ICJ’s ruling in terms of Afro-Eurasia has meant abandoning Mackinder’s Heartland Theory and embracing a transformational way forward. They have suspended competition for Heartland power. Instead, the three work cooperatively to assist local and regional areas in maintaining their cultural identities free from pressures toward or away from Westernization or Eurasianism. They also help stimulate growth that empowers Heartland countries through distributed power.

In response to the challenge of aging Heartland populations and to meet a growing regional workforce demand, they attract, train, and negotiate employment for young African workers. These workers easily adapt to or adopt religious, language, and or local socio-cultural norms to fit in. They are a solution for countries opposed to high numbers of migrant Chinese workers and are not viewed as politically threatening.

The three powers also reimagined the BRI in that it now prioritizes culturalization as a key aspect of trade. Producers and sellers only market quality culturally-appropriate goods, services, music, art, films, and technologies in each local economy. This includes those “Made in America”, “Made in China”, “Made in Africa”, and “Made in India”. However, the Black Market for inappropriate content is rapidly expanding.

In an increasingly multipolar Heartland where neither the U.S., Russia, nor China are dominant powers. One win is the trade-off of geopolitics rooted in geographical power accumulation for foreign policies that recognize geo-cultural identity as a critical driver of change. Another includes culturally-connected trade. A loss on the part of the three powers involves declining territorial control. China, for instance, renegotiated BRI loans so that infrastructure ownership remains with borrowers. Another loss for the three entails diminishing revenues from Heartland exploitations. Thus, they have turned their geopolitical competitive interests to Greenland once again.

In this 2050 transformation scenario for Eurasia’s Heartland, the U.S., Russia, and China are navigating a new way forward that is not based on Mackinder’s Heartland Theory. They have suspended their competitive tendencies of amassing Heartland power through territorial control to work cooperatively to empower Heartland countries. As they integrate culturalization into connected BRI trade, they help shape an increasingly multipolar Heartland driven by geo-cultural identity.

© Kimberly “Kay” Daniels 2020