Love this essay and this type of geography-is-destiny content you do so well. But some notes:
The Wikipedia article you linked seems to dispute your theory about why 10% of the Russian wheat harvest is left to rot: the explanation in Wikipedia is poor weather conditions. I'm sure that infrastructure is also a factor (exacerbated by and exacerbating the effects of poor weather), but I would check that.
Also, the connection between that ancient inland sea and American petroleum resources is a little hand-wavy. The maps you show have an inland sea... that doesn't cover the part of the US where oil was first discovered: in Pennsylvania and many clusters that were under the former landmass of ancient Appalachia. Obviously you're simplifying to keep the narrative clear but this undermines the argument a bit without some qualifier.
Lastly, it's a bit incongruent talking about how the Mississippi makes the Mississippi Valley so rich... when it's one of the most impoverished parts of the Untied States. You say, "the Mississippi Basin has the best farmland in the world and the best way to transport crops, making the region fabulously rich." But which region are we talking about? Mississippi and Alabama? (Not quite fabulously rich...). The Plains States? (More so!). Western Appalachia? (Less so!) The Midwest? Or are we talking about the entire United States, by extension?
What you mean, I think, is that the Mississippi Basin was the secret for a lot of the initial "primitive accumulation" phase for 19th Century American capitalism and industrial development and that its remains a massive multiplier of commerce today? That can be true even if the actual wealth doesn't deposit as so much silt in the actual river basin itself. Because the closer to the Mississippi River proper you get, the less wealthy things are, relative to the rest of the United States.
On Russia, you’re right that the support is not perfect. All this was certainly true before, and seems to be true now. I had a hard time finding reports on the long-term attribution of farming losses there, but since my prior was positive and the available evidence seemed to support it, and since this is not a fundamental part of the argument, I decided to assume it’s right. I might be wrong and I’m open to hearing evidence of the contrary.
I did fly over the inland sea — oil & gas connection, but it’s there and it’s strong. I didn’t expand on it due to narrative as you point out.
Indeed the Mississippi is not the richest today, because wealth in highly developed countries comes from cities, not farmland. But the farmland underpins everything else, and was certainly a huge factor in the beginning, as you outlined. Even today, it’s over 10% of exports, and if you include oil and gas, over 30%
That last point about US farmland and food production cannot be understated. We are one of (the only?) large and highly populated countries that can feed itself. Even if there was a naval blockade or other major impediment to international trade, the US has the food and energy needed to exist and even grow. I thought you were headed to that point.
That’s really the heart of it — if and when shit hits the fan, the United States can feed itself and keep the heat & lights on. The fact we are geographically protected and have the most heavily armed population in the industrialized world is just icing on the cake.
Not sure what you mean when you say Australia & New Zealand are modeled on the US system. They are parliamentary democracies (like Canada) & modeled on the British system, not that of the US, which is definitely not a parliamentary democracy.
I’m not sure that’s correct. Canada, UK, NZ, Australia are all part of the British Commonwealth and our systems of government are all based on the British Parliamentary system that dates back to the 1600’s. The government that stands out is the US government. I am not actually aware of other countries adopting the US two party system. Most modern democracies allowed multiple voices ensuring coalitions working together
That two party system and the money in politics is now breaking America apart. Americans are facing their biggest crisis since the Civil War
Parliamentary systems ensure that a rogue leader can be forced out by coalitions. Governments fall so there’s a check on their power
I don’t think he’s talking about the rules of government as much as the rules of the land. Parliamentary democracies have internal government functioning that is different and there are many other important distinctions between the US and these countries. However, liberal democracy, where the power comes from the people (free and fair elections) and individual rights (like owning property) are protected. This breeds a societal foundation (and a market place) that is similar across all these countries and more. I would argue all the other countries noted do a better job at ‘liberal democracy, than the US but that’s another essay.
It’s mixing up parliamentary democracies with a republic; I think that’s your strongest argument for why they’re not the same. And you’re right! (Even amongst republics, the US system is unique.)
Yes similar but not modelled. Constitutional monarchies with King Charles the sovereign. It would be fair to say a large cultural influence following WWII from the US, but otherwise everything else is from either British colonialism, the indigenous people/s, or the unique identity these countries have formed since
I guess similarity, to some extent is in the eye of the beholder. Having lived & worked in both the US & Canada, and now retired in New Zealand I am aware of a number of, what seem to me, significant differences despite all systems being originally based on British common law. One of the major differences is the emphasis on states independence in the US with legal structures having evolved differently within different states. There are many links discussing such issues on the web, e.g., https://sites.psu.edu/jlia/differences-between-the-canadian-and-american-legal-system/.
Having lived there, I would classify Australia’s democracy as a hybrid of the USA/UK democracies. Australia has a written constitution, the UK doesn’t; Australia has elected senators rather than Lords. However, the parliamentary system is closely modelled on Westminster and the Courts and received law are distinctly English in character (as distinct from Scottish law which can be a different kettle of fish).
If geography makes the U.S. hard to conquer, its culture makes it nearly impossible: 120 firearms per 100 residents turn the country into a continent-sized militia.
If that were true, then places like Yemen and Ukraine and Ethiopia would also be impossible to conquer, given their high rates of firearm ownership.
And maybe they are, but Russia has certainly made a go at it in Ukraine and Saudi Arabia visited a lot of devastation on Yemen recently.
In contemporary wars of conquest, firearms don't seem to be such a decisive factor. Missiles, drones, and mass fire artillery can do things that simple firearms are pretty impotent to counteract.
This statistic is often cited, but a corollary is that all private firearms in U.S. are owned by only 10% of the population. Thus 90% do not own guns. So politicians who appeal to gun owners may have a strategy in mind. But also, note that 60% of gun deaths in U.S. are suicides. So gun owners are more likely to turn their weapons on themselves than any other human target. Now, what does the 2nd Amendment protect? A better strategy is to have a strong independent military that is loyal to the Constitution.
As always, an interesting article. However, I disagree with the thesis that America's wealth was caused by its geography. In the long run, the wealth of a nation is determined by institutional framework (e.g. market economy vs. centrally planned economy, democracy vs dictatorship, etc) and human capital (factors like education, religion, etc.). That's why South Korea is rich and North Korea is poor. To put it exaggeratedly, you could move the whole US population to a desert, and the desert would become a super power. (Or maybe it's not even an exaggeration - see Israel).
The fact that geo is a major factor doesn’t mean it’s the only factor!
But how weird that the British colonies in temperate regions are rich, and the ones in warmer climates are poor, isn’t it? What a coincidence that the U.S. south is poorer than the U.S. North (caused by a climate-induced civil war)…
Isn't it more that former British colonies with extractive institutions suffered while those that were trading colonies that inherited English law, courts, and property rights prospered?
Thus you see Hong Kong and Singapore becoming extremely wealthy while India and colonized Africa stayed poor.
I am not sure which poor British colonies in warmer climates do you mean. Australia's GDP per capita is pretty high - even though it's literally a desert :)
I believe recent research finds no differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes, unless those regimes are personalist rather than power distributed over institutions
Yes US has a geographic advantage. But in 2025 is it the most important one? Technology, population and global networks are now much more important. The article strikes me as highly optimistic that 4% of the world's 8 billion can sustain economic and geopolitical dominance without analysing the possible superior advantages of the other 96%. Geography didn't protect the Native Americans.
The Comanche happening upon the Spanish horses being kept by that other tribe with less vision - has to be one of the bigger free lunches in history. Only ended by new cattle guns.
With all due respect, the Native Americans were never in the lead globally speaking. Sure, other places have been at the forefront and then lagged behind, but US geography is quite unique, as well as its strategic depth and reach. It also has high human capital and is a magnet for the smartest people woldwide. You'd need to be more specific about what you think will be the U.S.'s downfall. I will say China has some strengths, but apart from them, most of the world doesn't seem to have a stake in the race for being a global hegemon.
The automobile industry really did the ROTW a solid by outcompeting and stripping back the railway industry. Imagine if the US had a great rail freight network today. It would significantly decrease their reliance on oil and dramatically decrease their goods shipping costs.
Thanks for another great article. Since immigration was one of the factors that made America great, do you think that the current immigration policy which will lead to a decline in the American population will have an effect. Also, so far this year, American exports have fallen while Canadian ones have risen (not that Canada can ever be a superpower). If current policy continues, would that have an effect, or is the geographic factor so overwhelmingly dominant? Thanks for you views on this.
The U.S. has been uniquely good at using immigration to become richer. Not all immigration is the same, but in the long term, it would be very bad to eliminate immigration.
You can certainly destroy a country with very bad policy. Examples are Argentina, Venezuela, or North Korea. Hopefully the U.S. will not be so bad. It has the longest tradition of democracy, so it’s pretty safe there.
Nicely written article. Just curious, did you ever read George Friedman's geopolitical monographs? He wrote them for Stratfor maybe 15 years ago. I think you would enjoy reading them if you haven't already; he does very similar analyses.
Fascinating article, but the US benefitted from a well timed war of independence that meant enlightenment ideas formed the core of its constitution. I suspect all of the geographical advantages could have been squandered if it was less fortunate in its politics when it fought for independence. Look at Russia, so much potential, such terrible leadership, result misery and short life expectancy.
But totally agree with your analysis, very fortunate geography. Look at WWII - able to fight in both the Atlantic and Pacific at the same time while mobilising an economy that became the arsenal for democracy.
Yes, totally agree. An interesting thought - the South’s geography meant that a slave owning agricultural system remained viable long into the 19C and their political system regressed into a crude (and racist) system that was increasingly unenlightened. The North’s geography encouraged settlement by incomers that continued the enlightenment traditions of the founding fathers… so geography influenced the political development
My understanding of the contrast between the culture of the North and South at that time is largely drawn from the relevant chapters of Team of Rivals, for someone living on the other side of the Atlantic it was a fascinating description of the US pre civil war.
A nice summary of why the US rose to prominence in the world with ‘natural’ advantages, however once the maintenance of infrastructure and economic development became shortterm , whole areas‘forgotten’ and ‘national’ standards become obsolete; Political instability is inevitable.
Thank you for another intriguing article about geopolitical history. I happened to be procrastinating on some homework so this was a welcome diversion, but otherwise although I have been a paid subscriber since your covid articles, I haven't had much free time to read most of your articles. I went back to college last fall and while very enjoyable, it does consume a large amount of my free time.
But I just wanted to say again how much I do enjoy reading your articles when I can make time (stalling time, ha!) to do so. Your writing is worth subscribing for! Keep writing, and don't let anyone discourage you from writing!
Also while some may accuse you of being political, it doesn't take a genius to see when actions are being taken by the current regime that harm the US and its citizens. I am constantly amazed by those who tell me with a straight face that tariffs are paid by other countries to enrich our country and thus the cost of groceries and other goods will become lower and more affordable. <facepalm> <eyeroll>
Love this essay and this type of geography-is-destiny content you do so well. But some notes:
The Wikipedia article you linked seems to dispute your theory about why 10% of the Russian wheat harvest is left to rot: the explanation in Wikipedia is poor weather conditions. I'm sure that infrastructure is also a factor (exacerbated by and exacerbating the effects of poor weather), but I would check that.
Also, the connection between that ancient inland sea and American petroleum resources is a little hand-wavy. The maps you show have an inland sea... that doesn't cover the part of the US where oil was first discovered: in Pennsylvania and many clusters that were under the former landmass of ancient Appalachia. Obviously you're simplifying to keep the narrative clear but this undermines the argument a bit without some qualifier.
Lastly, it's a bit incongruent talking about how the Mississippi makes the Mississippi Valley so rich... when it's one of the most impoverished parts of the Untied States. You say, "the Mississippi Basin has the best farmland in the world and the best way to transport crops, making the region fabulously rich." But which region are we talking about? Mississippi and Alabama? (Not quite fabulously rich...). The Plains States? (More so!). Western Appalachia? (Less so!) The Midwest? Or are we talking about the entire United States, by extension?
What you mean, I think, is that the Mississippi Basin was the secret for a lot of the initial "primitive accumulation" phase for 19th Century American capitalism and industrial development and that its remains a massive multiplier of commerce today? That can be true even if the actual wealth doesn't deposit as so much silt in the actual river basin itself. Because the closer to the Mississippi River proper you get, the less wealthy things are, relative to the rest of the United States.
Thank you!! All great points.
On Russia, you’re right that the support is not perfect. All this was certainly true before, and seems to be true now. I had a hard time finding reports on the long-term attribution of farming losses there, but since my prior was positive and the available evidence seemed to support it, and since this is not a fundamental part of the argument, I decided to assume it’s right. I might be wrong and I’m open to hearing evidence of the contrary.
I did fly over the inland sea — oil & gas connection, but it’s there and it’s strong. I didn’t expand on it due to narrative as you point out.
Indeed the Mississippi is not the richest today, because wealth in highly developed countries comes from cities, not farmland. But the farmland underpins everything else, and was certainly a huge factor in the beginning, as you outlined. Even today, it’s over 10% of exports, and if you include oil and gas, over 30%
That last point about US farmland and food production cannot be understated. We are one of (the only?) large and highly populated countries that can feed itself. Even if there was a naval blockade or other major impediment to international trade, the US has the food and energy needed to exist and even grow. I thought you were headed to that point.
That’s really the heart of it — if and when shit hits the fan, the United States can feed itself and keep the heat & lights on. The fact we are geographically protected and have the most heavily armed population in the industrialized world is just icing on the cake.
Fortress North America for the win.
An interesting & thought provoking article.
Not sure what you mean when you say Australia & New Zealand are modeled on the US system. They are parliamentary democracies (like Canada) & modeled on the British system, not that of the US, which is definitely not a parliamentary democracy.
They are all liberal democracies, all formed after the U.S., and the legislative stack is quite similar to that of the U.S.!
I’m not sure that’s correct. Canada, UK, NZ, Australia are all part of the British Commonwealth and our systems of government are all based on the British Parliamentary system that dates back to the 1600’s. The government that stands out is the US government. I am not actually aware of other countries adopting the US two party system. Most modern democracies allowed multiple voices ensuring coalitions working together
That two party system and the money in politics is now breaking America apart. Americans are facing their biggest crisis since the Civil War
Parliamentary systems ensure that a rogue leader can be forced out by coalitions. Governments fall so there’s a check on their power
I don’t think he’s talking about the rules of government as much as the rules of the land. Parliamentary democracies have internal government functioning that is different and there are many other important distinctions between the US and these countries. However, liberal democracy, where the power comes from the people (free and fair elections) and individual rights (like owning property) are protected. This breeds a societal foundation (and a market place) that is similar across all these countries and more. I would argue all the other countries noted do a better job at ‘liberal democracy, than the US but that’s another essay.
It’s mixing up parliamentary democracies with a republic; I think that’s your strongest argument for why they’re not the same. And you’re right! (Even amongst republics, the US system is unique.)
Canada was certainly NOT modeled after the US system.
Yes similar but not modelled. Constitutional monarchies with King Charles the sovereign. It would be fair to say a large cultural influence following WWII from the US, but otherwise everything else is from either British colonialism, the indigenous people/s, or the unique identity these countries have formed since
Yes, fair. Not modeled constitutionally. I meant legally.
I guess similarity, to some extent is in the eye of the beholder. Having lived & worked in both the US & Canada, and now retired in New Zealand I am aware of a number of, what seem to me, significant differences despite all systems being originally based on British common law. One of the major differences is the emphasis on states independence in the US with legal structures having evolved differently within different states. There are many links discussing such issues on the web, e.g., https://sites.psu.edu/jlia/differences-between-the-canadian-and-american-legal-system/.
Having lived there, I would classify Australia’s democracy as a hybrid of the USA/UK democracies. Australia has a written constitution, the UK doesn’t; Australia has elected senators rather than Lords. However, the parliamentary system is closely modelled on Westminster and the Courts and received law are distinctly English in character (as distinct from Scottish law which can be a different kettle of fish).
Indeed, the parliamentary system in Australia is nicknamed “Washminster” (Washington + Westminster)
If geography makes the U.S. hard to conquer, its culture makes it nearly impossible: 120 firearms per 100 residents turn the country into a continent-sized militia.
True!
Fun fact: I believe Switzerland has more arms per person!
But what if those firearms are turned on each other due to widening gaps in wealth and internal culture?
A civil war is not out of the question.
According to Wikipedia the United States has 120 privately owned guns per 100 people, and Switzerland has 27 privately owned guns per 100 people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
I was wrong! Thanks for that.
If that were true, then places like Yemen and Ukraine and Ethiopia would also be impossible to conquer, given their high rates of firearm ownership.
And maybe they are, but Russia has certainly made a go at it in Ukraine and Saudi Arabia visited a lot of devastation on Yemen recently.
In contemporary wars of conquest, firearms don't seem to be such a decisive factor. Missiles, drones, and mass fire artillery can do things that simple firearms are pretty impotent to counteract.
This statistic is often cited, but a corollary is that all private firearms in U.S. are owned by only 10% of the population. Thus 90% do not own guns. So politicians who appeal to gun owners may have a strategy in mind. But also, note that 60% of gun deaths in U.S. are suicides. So gun owners are more likely to turn their weapons on themselves than any other human target. Now, what does the 2nd Amendment protect? A better strategy is to have a strong independent military that is loyal to the Constitution.
As always, an interesting article. However, I disagree with the thesis that America's wealth was caused by its geography. In the long run, the wealth of a nation is determined by institutional framework (e.g. market economy vs. centrally planned economy, democracy vs dictatorship, etc) and human capital (factors like education, religion, etc.). That's why South Korea is rich and North Korea is poor. To put it exaggeratedly, you could move the whole US population to a desert, and the desert would become a super power. (Or maybe it's not even an exaggeration - see Israel).
The fact that geo is a major factor doesn’t mean it’s the only factor!
But how weird that the British colonies in temperate regions are rich, and the ones in warmer climates are poor, isn’t it? What a coincidence that the U.S. south is poorer than the U.S. North (caused by a climate-induced civil war)…
Isn't it more that former British colonies with extractive institutions suffered while those that were trading colonies that inherited English law, courts, and property rights prospered?
Thus you see Hong Kong and Singapore becoming extremely wealthy while India and colonized Africa stayed poor.
I am not sure which poor British colonies in warmer climates do you mean. Australia's GDP per capita is pretty high - even though it's literally a desert :)
And indeed people and wealth prospered in those tiny southern coastal spots that offered a temperate Mediterranean climate
I believe recent research finds no differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes, unless those regimes are personalist rather than power distributed over institutions
Yes US has a geographic advantage. But in 2025 is it the most important one? Technology, population and global networks are now much more important. The article strikes me as highly optimistic that 4% of the world's 8 billion can sustain economic and geopolitical dominance without analysing the possible superior advantages of the other 96%. Geography didn't protect the Native Americans.
You’re spot on. The more time passes, the less geography matters.
It still matters though, especially with such an amazing geography.
Geo didn’t protect native Americans because they hadn’t reached enough tech, so that’s back to your point on the interaction of tech and geo.
The Comanche happening upon the Spanish horses being kept by that other tribe with less vision - has to be one of the bigger free lunches in history. Only ended by new cattle guns.
With all due respect, the Native Americans were never in the lead globally speaking. Sure, other places have been at the forefront and then lagged behind, but US geography is quite unique, as well as its strategic depth and reach. It also has high human capital and is a magnet for the smartest people woldwide. You'd need to be more specific about what you think will be the U.S.'s downfall. I will say China has some strengths, but apart from them, most of the world doesn't seem to have a stake in the race for being a global hegemon.
Uhhh regarding energy: China has greatly overtaken the US and shows no sign of plateauing energy production
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-generation?tab=line&country=IND~USA~OWID_EUR~CHN
This reads like interesting history with a pro-US bias and ignoring other very important factors like institutions
This is the strongest possible GEO argument in favor of the U.S. It doesn’t mean others are weak, or that there are no other factors
Hmm ok, that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the post so I didn't get that impression as a first time reader
Never say never
The automobile industry really did the ROTW a solid by outcompeting and stripping back the railway industry. Imagine if the US had a great rail freight network today. It would significantly decrease their reliance on oil and dramatically decrease their goods shipping costs.
Thanks for another great article. Since immigration was one of the factors that made America great, do you think that the current immigration policy which will lead to a decline in the American population will have an effect. Also, so far this year, American exports have fallen while Canadian ones have risen (not that Canada can ever be a superpower). If current policy continues, would that have an effect, or is the geographic factor so overwhelmingly dominant? Thanks for you views on this.
The U.S. has been uniquely good at using immigration to become richer. Not all immigration is the same, but in the long term, it would be very bad to eliminate immigration.
You can certainly destroy a country with very bad policy. Examples are Argentina, Venezuela, or North Korea. Hopefully the U.S. will not be so bad. It has the longest tradition of democracy, so it’s pretty safe there.
I appreciate your optimism wrt the US remaining a democracy. That is a much longer discussion.
I appreciate your optimism
Not sure how much I believe it though
Nicely written article. Just curious, did you ever read George Friedman's geopolitical monographs? He wrote them for Stratfor maybe 15 years ago. I think you would enjoy reading them if you haven't already; he does very similar analyses.
I quoted it here! Yes it’s one of the big inspirations for this article
Fascinating article, but the US benefitted from a well timed war of independence that meant enlightenment ideas formed the core of its constitution. I suspect all of the geographical advantages could have been squandered if it was less fortunate in its politics when it fought for independence. Look at Russia, so much potential, such terrible leadership, result misery and short life expectancy.
But totally agree with your analysis, very fortunate geography. Look at WWII - able to fight in both the Atlantic and Pacific at the same time while mobilising an economy that became the arsenal for democracy.
And yet the South was so much poorer than the North at the onset of the Civil War, nearly one century later!
It's almost as if geography also had an influence on institutions
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/climate-caused-the-us-civil-war
But yes, I don't mean that institutions are worthless, they're not. I think it's well-known though, whereas people forget about geo
Yes, totally agree. An interesting thought - the South’s geography meant that a slave owning agricultural system remained viable long into the 19C and their political system regressed into a crude (and racist) system that was increasingly unenlightened. The North’s geography encouraged settlement by incomers that continued the enlightenment traditions of the founding fathers… so geography influenced the political development
My understanding of the contrast between the culture of the North and South at that time is largely drawn from the relevant chapters of Team of Rivals, for someone living on the other side of the Atlantic it was a fascinating description of the US pre civil war.
The way to defeat the United States is from within. And the enemy knows this
Two of my favorites: maps and history. I feel like I just won the lottery.
Glad to hear!
A nice summary of why the US rose to prominence in the world with ‘natural’ advantages, however once the maintenance of infrastructure and economic development became shortterm , whole areas‘forgotten’ and ‘national’ standards become obsolete; Political instability is inevitable.
Rome wasn’t defeated by outside forces, they were a symptom, not the cause.
Indeed, internal issues were very important too.
Rome was surrounded by enemies though.
Which means only America can defeat America, though an America that depends on neo-colonialism can be diminished.
Tomas,
Thank you for another intriguing article about geopolitical history. I happened to be procrastinating on some homework so this was a welcome diversion, but otherwise although I have been a paid subscriber since your covid articles, I haven't had much free time to read most of your articles. I went back to college last fall and while very enjoyable, it does consume a large amount of my free time.
But I just wanted to say again how much I do enjoy reading your articles when I can make time (stalling time, ha!) to do so. Your writing is worth subscribing for! Keep writing, and don't let anyone discourage you from writing!
Also while some may accuse you of being political, it doesn't take a genius to see when actions are being taken by the current regime that harm the US and its citizens. I am constantly amazed by those who tell me with a straight face that tariffs are paid by other countries to enrich our country and thus the cost of groceries and other goods will become lower and more affordable. <facepalm> <eyeroll>
Thank you!
Tariffs are uncontroversially bad across most economists! The silver lining of the current ones is that democrats will learn to oppose them!