1.035 words * 5 minutes readingtime
The economic and technological success of any industrial nation stands or falls on the adequate availability of raw materials, particularly energy carriers like gas and oil, as well as markets for its manufactured products. This applies especially to Germany.
Close partnership with states that can offer both these needed raw materials and energy carriers as well as good markets is therefore in the vital interest of any industrial nation, Germany included.
Russia can offer precisely that: cheap raw materials, cheap energy carriers, and an enormous market to the east—beyond that, abundant labor and security policy stability. With the advantage of short supply and transport routes.
A partnership between Germany and Russia would therefore be not only geopolitically, economically, and technologically logical—it would virtually impose itself.
Yet for decades we’ve witnessed the opposite—a consistent political separation that in recent years has, on Germany’s part, culminated in open hostility toward Russia.
Why does German politics act so massively against the country’s interests? Against the interests of German business, German industry, and the German population?
Is this a strategic misunderstanding, incompetent politics, ignorance—or is there geopolitical calculation behind it? Is it planned and deliberately implemented?
If so, why?
The Heartland Theory: Blueprint for a Century
A possible explanation lies in the “Heartland Theory” of British geographer Halford Mackinder, formulated as early as 1904:
“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland. Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island. Who rules the World-Island commands the World.”
The “Heartland” was equated with the region of Russia and Europe. The Berlin-Moscow axis would have the potential to create precisely this world power base.
This is no secret and has been openly stated by many US strategists, including Zbigniew Brzezinski—former chief strategist of the Pentagon under Ronald Reagan—George Friedman, owner of the geostrategic US think tank Stratfor, and many more.
In his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard,” Brzezinski writes:
“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.”
He explicitly warns:
“The most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran… not from shared ideology but from complementary grievances.”
Preventing this is one of the primary goals of US foreign and geopolitical policy. From Washington’s perspective, there must be no alliance that combines (formerly excellent) German engineering with Russian raw materials and labor.
This was also a reason NATO was founded.
“To keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out”—declared first Secretary General Lord Hastings Ismay, NATO founding member.
Present: Policy Against One’s Own Interests
Germany today is weakened in energy policy and thus economically. The nuclear power phase-out, abandonment of cheap and abundantly available Russian energy carriers, and turn toward costly and insufficiently available LNG gas imports from the US sharpen the crisis in business and industry.
NATO has massively expanded eastward, the EU is heavily arming militarily, and Ukraine has become the bone of contention between West and East.
The aforementioned US analyst George Friedman (Stratfor) already formulated it quite openly in 2015:
“The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars—the First, the Second and Cold Wars—has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.”
Here speaks no “conspiracy theorist” but one of the geopolitical insiders articulating the logic that has prevailed for over a century.
But why does Germany pursue this course? Germany would have much to gain from cooperation with Russia. Yet for decades, the exact opposite has occurred: an ever-escalating, massive confrontation with Russia—contrary to its own interests!
Germany’s Strategic Cage
A possible explanation lies in Germany’s general dependence on the US. Military (NATO), economic (export markets, financial system), and political influence through media, think tanks, and networks (Atlantik-Brücke). Add to this external US influence. Since 1945, Washington has maintained a deeply rooted interest in steering German politics—through European “elites” who think more transatlantically than pursuing national interests. The suspicion virtually imposes itself that German politicians don’t act freely but rather are caught in a strategic vise—seeking close alignment with the US and thus inevitably distance from Russia.
The outlook points to a dangerous “game” for Europe whose consequences are already politically palpable:
Economic weakening through expensive energy leading to competitiveness losses.
Geopolitical dependence of the EU on the US becomes increasingly evident—Europe acts more as Washington’s appendage than as an independent pole.
Security risks become clear—instead of stability on the eastern border, permanent war in Europe openly threatens.
The Grand Chessboard in Practice
The question that remains is whether Europe will one day develop autonomous, independent foreign policy or remains trapped as a junior partner of the US in confrontational policy with Russia—which ultimately lies not in European but in US-American interests.
Brzezinski, Mackinder, or Friedman—the common conclusion: the greatest geopolitical risk for the US would be an alliance between Germany and Russia. The politics of recent years make clear that this alliance must not be allowed to exist.
Whether Germany ever finds the courage to place its own interests above geopolitical directives will decide whether Germany, and thus Europe, will exist as an independent actor—or remain a playing piece on the “grand chessboard” of world powers.
The forbidden alliance remains forbidden not because it’s impossible, but because it’s too powerful. And that’s precisely why it won’t be permitted.
Key Sources
- Halford Mackinder: “The Geographical Pivot of History” (1904)
- Zbigniew Brzezinski: “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives” (1997)
- George Friedman (Stratfor): Chicago Council on Global Affairs speech (February 2015)
- Lord Hastings Ismay: NATO founding statement (1949)
Michael Hollister is a former European military professional with experience in Balkans peacekeeping operations during the 1990s. After a career transition into IT security, he now analyzes NATO expansion, European militarization, and Western interventions. His work challenges mainstream narratives on conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and beyond. Published in German and English at www.michael-hollister.com
© Michael Hollister — Redistribution, publication or reuse of this text is explicitly welcome. The only requirement is proper source attribution and a link to www.michael-hollister.com (or in printed form the note “Source: www.michael-hollister.com”).
Newsletter
🇩🇪 Deutsch: Verstehen Sie geopolitische Zusammenhänge durch Primärquellen, historische Parallelen und dokumentierte Machtstrukturen. Monatlich, zweisprachig (DE/EN).
🇬🇧 English: Understand geopolitical contexts through primary sources, historical patterns, and documented power structures. Monthly, bilingual (DE/EN).