Technology, not geography, will grant global power in the 21st century

In 1904, the British geographer and strategist Sir Halford Mackinder delivered a paper to the Royal Geographical Society in London titled, “The Geographic Pivot of History.” In it, he argued that control over the Eurasian heartland—what he called the “pivot area”—would determine the future of world power. His theory became foundational to modern geopolitical thought, influencing everything from British imperial strategy to Cold War containment doctrine.

Mackinder’s central premise was simple but profound: geography shapes destiny. Railroads, industrialization, and continental-scale military logistics were transforming the old maritime balance of power, and Mackinder believed that the vast landmass of Eurasia—with its resources, manpower, and central position—would become the key to global dominance.

More than a century later, the world looks radically different. Great power competition is no longer solely a contest over territory or physical access to critical chokepoints. Today, while geography still matters and will continue to shape strategic realities, technology is playing an increasingly central role in defining geopolitical competition in the 21st century. Rather than fully replacing geography, technology is becoming the critical complement to it—transforming the way states project power, protect their interests, and influence global affairs.

In the 21st century, the new “pivot of history” is not a place—but a set of technologies.

I was recently reminded of Mackinder’s relevance by an excellent article from my colleague Hal Brands at Johns Hopkins SAIS. In revisiting Mackinder’s insights, Brands shows how deeply geography shaped 20th-century grand strategy—and how much of that thinking still permeates defense and foreign policy today.

Yet as I read it, I found myself thinking: What would Mackinder say if he were alive now? Would he still see the Eurasian heartland as the strategic center of gravity—or would he look instead to the frontiers of artificial intelligence, quantum computing, semiconductors, outer space, undersea cables, and biotechnology?

In my view, these technologies—rather than any patch of terrain—will likely define who leads and who follows in the 21st century. They are the modern equivalents of the railroads and battleships that reshaped the balance of power in Mackinder’s day. And unlike a landmass, technological advantage is not fixed. It must be cultivated, protected, and renewed constantly.

Consider artificial intelligence. AI is already transforming warfare, intelligence collection, logistics, and decision-making. The country that best harnesses AI will be able to dominate in everything from autonomous systems and electronic warfare to cyber defense and space operations. As Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated, “whoever dominates the development of AI, will rule the world.”

Likewise, quantum computing promises to render today’s encryption obsolete while creating new frontiers in simulation and data analysis. Biotechnology will reshape medicine, agriculture, and human performance. Semiconductors remain the irreplaceable backbone of all these domains.

It is no coincidence that these sectors are at the heart of the current strategic competition between the United States and China. Beijing has made technological supremacy a national priority. Through its “Made in China 2025” strategy and other initiatives, China is pouring resources into scientific research, tightening control over supply chains, and investing heavily in its universities and tech sectors. According to the most recent Annual Threat Assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, China is pursuing a whole-of-government strategy to become the world’s leading science and technology power.

This should concern every American policymaker. For decades, the United States maintained its global leadership in part because of a unique ecosystem that combined government R&D, leading research universities, and a dynamic private sector. This federal-university-industry partnership—first forged during World War II with programs like the Manhattan Project and refined during the Cold War—produced many of the technological breakthroughs that powered U.S. military and economic dominance.

But that ecosystem is now under strain. Funding for basic scientific research has stagnated in relative terms. As I have written elsewhere, political attacks on universities—most recently the Trump administration’s proposal to cut federal research funding over campus responses to antisemitism—threaten to undermine the long-term scientific base that sustains American innovation.

Let me be clear: antisemitism, like all forms of bigotry, must be condemned and confronted. But we must find ways to address these cultural and political issues without destroying one of the crown jewels of our national security architecture.

Meanwhile, our adversaries are not waiting. China is racing ahead with aggressive investments in STEM education, advanced manufacturing, and dual-use technologies. It is also working to dominate critical infrastructure like undersea cables, satellite networks, and 5G systems—digital equivalents of Mackinder’s railroads and ports. Control over these domains translates directly into geopolitical influence, economic leverage, and military advantage.

This is why I believe we must update Mackinder’s thesis for the modern era. Instead of just asking who controls the Eurasian heartland, we must also ask: who controls the semiconductor supply chain? Who leads in quantum research? Who sets the global standards for AI ethics and cybersecurity? These are the questions that will determine global power in the coming decades.

To compete effectively in this new strategic environment, the United States must take several key steps:

1. Reinvest in Basic Scientific Research: We need a significant and sustained increase in federal research and development funding, particularly in foundational science and engineering fields. This must include long-term support for university-based basic research, which is often the seedbed of breakthrough innovation.
2. Revitalize the Federal-University Partnership: There is no doubt that American universities have made significant political mistakes over the past decade that they must address. That said, Washington must rebuild trust with academia, not wage culture wars against it. On the other hand, universities must do their part by reaffirming commitments to free inquiry, rigorous scholarship, and national service. In return, they deserve stable support and meaningful engagement from policymakers.
3. Strengthen Public-Private Collaboration: The government should act as a catalyst and customer for emerging technologies. Programs and organizations like the Defense Innovation Unit, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, In-Q-Tel, and the CHIPS and Science Act point in the right direction—but they must be scaled and institutionalized. Additionally, Congress and the administration should take the opportunity to fundamentally overhaul the federal acquisition process in ways that ensures capabilities can be quickly deployed.
4. Safeguard Critical Supply Chains: The U.S. and its allies must reduce dependence on adversarial nations for key technologies, especially rare earth minerals and semiconductors. Friend-shoring and secure innovation networks will be essential.
5. Lead in Setting Global Norms: In AI, biotech, and cyber, the U.S. must work with democratic allies to shape the rules of the road. These technologies are not neutral—they reflect values. If we do not lead, others with very different worldviews will.
6. Promote Legal Immigration Pathways. The U.S. military has long benefited from the talent and innovation of immigrants. During the Cold War, immigrant physicists and mathematicians played a foundational role in advancing missile defense, satellite reconnaissance, and nuclear deterrence. In more recent decades, immigrants have driven breakthroughs in cybersecurity, autonomous systems, and AI-enabled defense technologies. To sustain its competitive edge in emerging technologies, the United States must maintain—and strengthen—legal immigration pathways that attract top scientific and technical talent from around the world. An open and strategic immigration system is not just a domestic policy choice; it is a national security imperative.

In many ways, our future depends not on reclaiming lost terrain but on winning the race for ideas. The new “pivot area” is likely not a continent—it is a constellation of labs, startups, and academic institutions. And like Mackinder’s heartland, these domains are where early advances can confer long-lasting dominance.

Mackinder helped his contemporaries understand the world they were entering. We must do the same. Today’s policymakers need a new geopolitical framework—one that recognizes that the strategic high ground of the 21st century is no longer just land or sea, but technology.

The nations that lead in innovation will shape the rules, win the wars, and dominate the future.

The only question that remains is this: Will the United States seize this moment—or surrender it?

Frank A. Rose is President of Chevalier Strategic Advisors, a strategic advisory firm focused on the intersection of geopolitics and defense technology. He previously served as Principal Deputy Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (2021-2024), U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control (2014-2017), a Professional Staff Member on the House Armed Services Committee (2007-2009), and as a Policy Advisor at the U.S. Department of Defense (1999-2006).