The Heartland Theory was proposed by Halford Mackinder in 1904.
The Heartland is the central area of Eurasia and parts of Eastern Europe. This area was land locked, agriculturaly self sufficient, resourceful and trade was land dominated.
Mackinder's doctrin was:
"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
Who rules the World-Island commands the World."
As the Heartland consisted much of the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union, it had self sufficiency in grain and agriculture (often called the "breadbasket of Europe"), Energy Resources ( coal, oil, gas), Raw Materials (Timber, metals,iron, nickel, and copper) and their trade with Europe was mainly land locked e.g the Trans-Siberian Railway.
The Heartland sought to dominate its surrounding east europe through a large Land based Army to secure strategic depth and access to warm water ports, critical resources, and influence.
This theory remained relevant during the early-to-mid 20th century, when Eurasia was considered as the center of power and resources. It emphasized on Geographical Determinism, land based power (e.g Army, infantry), resource and land connectivity to control the heartland and world Islands.
But due to technological innovation, rise of meritime trade and air travel, integrated economic dependency and the rise of the new multi-polar worlds after the 2nd world war, this theory became obsolete.
Thus, The Rimland Theory was developed by Nicholas Spykman in the 1940s, as a response to Halford Mackinder's Heartland Theory.
In contrast to Heartlands Land Force Dominance, the Rimland theory was influenced by the rise of Naval and Air power.
Spykman argued that the Rimland—the coastal areas surrounding Eurasia—was more critical to controlling the "World-Island" (Eurasia and Africa) than the Heartland itself. The Rimland includes Western Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia—regions that border the Heartland and have access to major seas and oceans.
He modified Mackinder’s doctrin into:
"Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia;
Who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world."
In present scenario, Rimland has the world's largest population, Low Cost Human Resources, largest consumer base, critical Maritime gateways through which over 80% of global trade is conducted and most of the natural resource mines (Coal, Oil, Gas, Rare Earth Minerals) are located in this region.
Unlike the Heartlands land dominated trade dependency, the Rimland is Maritime oriented and its gateways (e.g., the Suez Canal, Strait of Hormuz, Malacca Strait ) connect the Heartlands to the world Islands from Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean region.
Spikeman emphasized whoever dominates the Rimland through Naval and Air Power will domante the world. This theory's reflection can be seen in the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, Security Alliance such as AUKUS, China and India's Naval dominance policy and rapid modernization effort.
While Bangladesh being located on the Rimland periphery, our policy still incorporates outdated Heartland theory where our land based Army is prioritised in defence modernization.
All our trade and economic concentration, geopolitical dynamics are maritime centric. We're encircled from 3 sides by the Wolf Land and have access to the sea only from the south.
Why should Bangladesh focus on Naval Power?
It's because of Indo-China geopolitical Dynamics and a potential border shift in the North Eastern sector.
Future border shifting became a reality in the South Eastern part when Rakhaine was taken over by the Arakan Army.
As I previously theorized that a possible Chian-Bangladesh border is still in the play due to our geographical compulsion, Bangladesh can be the alternative trading route for china by passing the Malacca Strait.
To secure its future regional dominance and trade security, Bangladesh must aspire to become a Blue Water Navy.
Our 'Forces Goal' should be on the Navy and Air Force. Historically, Bangladesh has been a major regional power when ever it possessed a huge Naval Force.
Should we also not incorporate the Rimland theory in our defence doctrine?
Why are we not investing in the Navy and Air Force?
