Security analysis commonly considers geography and the defensibility of borders. Britain's island position makes control of surrounding seas central to strategic depth. A criticism of British defence thinking after 1945 is that it has repeatedly undervalued that naval dependence. American mountains and canyons provide a comparison with Russia's extensive frontiers. In the geographical interpretation offered here, Russia's wars and revolutions complicate where a natural defensive boundary would lie. A larger state can gain reach while acquiring more territory to defend. This does not make any particular frontier inevitable.
Notable Point · 4:52-6:45
Strategic depth, natural borders and the cost of territory
Britain, the United States and Russia provide contrasting examples of how geography shapes security arguments and defensive burdens.