Classical "geographies"

the point is the only way to come to control the vast majority of the world population and land area is via the heartland

And how does this theory deal with the swathe of naval imperialist powers?

Naval power with no land power = vikings. Terrifying, hated by everybody, but ultimately confined to their own lands with few colonies that last long enough to bear mentioning. You look at Britain and the reason they did so well is yes they had a powerful Navy, but they also had a powerful army and always made sure to build forts and put boots on the ground wherever they wanted to project force.

Russia hadn't industrialized yet

Stop talking bullshit. The world was dominated by a handful of naval powers from Europe that were massively outnumbered by the rest of the world.

>ultimately confined to their own lands
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris_(845)

That's because navy = speed/distance and you need that for influencing far off corners in the world. Russia, with mostly land assets, dominated as a great power because it didn't need a navy, everything was within their reach.

Well, everything that isn't separated from your reach by a body of water

Which I suppose isn't a huge problem in central Asia

>any industrialized nation can challenge a naval power but it is difficult to invade a land power
??? Naval powers are way harder to invade
Both Nappy and Hitler went after Russia before Britain

The only reason a land power would be hard to invade is because it's a massive sparsely populated hostile shithole. step 3 completely negates this by filling it with resources and infrastructure

He had the contradictions of every scholar who studies their nation's enemies, simultaneously attracted and filled with furious nationalistic pride in his own country, see: most Cold War balance of power realists

This isn't correct.

The basic idea is that the Heartland is an easily defendable region which can only be invaded from Eastern Europe. If you control Eastern Europe, you will have control of the Heartland. This gives control over much of the world's arable land, and provides an easy platform to expand from. Geopolitical theory believed that through controlling this Heartland, one could exert their power throughout the Eurasian continent, and once they had control of the continent, they then could easily control the entire world. Much of American geopolitical strategy in the 20th century focussed on preventing Russia from being able to expand out of this "Heartland" and Eastern Europe.

The biggest problem with the Heartland Thesis is that it doesn't account for the huge agricultural potential of the Midwestern United States, and therefore significantly underestimated the power of any nation which controlled it.

The idea wasn't that naval powers are easier to invade, it is that they are significantly less powerful in comparison to land powers. As I mentioned any power which controlled the Heartland could use that as a platform to control the rest of Eurasia. Any power which wasn't located in mainland Europe, Asia, or Africa was considered a naval power, which could only compete against the immense land power in Eurasia with a powerful navy to counter their massive resources in both population and natural resources. This is essentially true, Britain was always a naval power, and in modern times, the US is much more of a naval power than a land power.

As mentioned before, however, the theory strongly downplayed the resources of the Midwestern United States, and therefore underestimated how powerful a nation like America could become and how many people it's land could support.

Regardless of the problems with the theory, it essentially came true. Russia is the most dominant power on the "World Island" and is largely a land power. The naval power which is the United States which largely controls the insular crescent had to focus on containing Russia rather than fighting the Cold War through direct confrontation. Even in modern times, American policy towards Russia is essentially a form of containment.

Feels comfy living in South America, completely outside of geopolitical hotspots.

That's because the entire region is a guinea pig and/or incubator for larger powers' plans for influence

I don't think Russia is the dominant land power anymore on Afroeurasia. It seems to be a toss up mostly between NATO, China, and Russia right now.

NATO forces in Western Europe rely on American protection and technology and China's military is still not considered on par with the Russian military. Regardless, this is about sustained military too. Russia has always been a dominant land power in European affairs since it formed, and still stands strongest in Eurasia as a single military force.