Conceptualising Middle Powers In Geopolitics – IMPRI Impact And Policy Research Institute

Siddhartha Natarajan

Hypothesising the Nuances of the ‘Middle’ and ‘Great Powers’

The march of cultures across history has often been defined by the trajectories of ‘Great Powers’; kingdoms, nations, states, or empires whose were able to distinguish themselves from their contemporaries within the context of shared space by virtue of the combination of institutions and factors – economic, military, technological, political, geographic, socio-cultural, resource power, etc. – that enabled them to exert a major degree of influence and enforce their will over most other actors with competing interests.

Such factors ensure that the actions of the ‘Great Power’ is able to exercise primacy over the geopolitical constituents of a defined area that it is able to dominate and thus forward its own agendas and thus constitutes its sphere of influence. The authority of the ‘Great Power’, aside from the factors facilitating its inherent geopolitical and economic dominance, may also be derived from the ability to engage in an unequal transactional relationship with the other states operating in its sphere of influence.

‘Lesser powers’ existing within sphere of influence of the ‘Great Power’ may attempt to benefit from the interactions with it by building econo- political ties while in turn gaining from infrastructural, economic, and material investments from the ‘Great Power’ and the overarching security afforded by positive associations with a ‘Great Power’.

The position of the ‘middle power’ may be largely defined by its role in acting as an ally to the interests of the ‘Great Power’ while acting in tandem to simultaneously use this association as a bastion from which to facilitate the assertion and protection of their own agendas. While the term ‘middle power’ may not have an exact definition, the characteristics of such an organisation might be centered around the capacity of such states to shape their external interactions by situating themselves in the existing geopolitical order vis-a-vis the position of a particular ‘Great Power’.

However, the ‘middle power’ may also be able to access enough material and economic power to make it a potential ally in partially holding enough capabilities to perpetuate the influence of the ‘Great Power’.

With the opposition to the interests of a ‘Great Power’ primarily arising from other ‘Great Powers’ with similar investments in expanding their spheres of influence, the alignments of the ‘Middle Powers’ may have an important role in contributing to the expressions of power contests; with regard to the extent of authority that a ‘Great Power’ may be able to exercise, its influence may range from supraregional to international levels. The ‘middle power’ and less geopolitically influential states might thus find themselves accordingly acting as direct buffer states, sites of regional contests, or as proxies for showdowns between ‘Great Powers’.

In this regard the associations between the ‘Middle Power’ and a particular allied ‘Great Power’ might entail that they become targets for rival ‘Great Powers’. This in turn leads to a cyclical relationship with the ‘Great Power’ investing resources in the ‘Middle Power’ as a buffer against its rivals, thus again necessitating its dependance on its allies for security against rivals targeting these investments and the ‘Middle Powers’ own infrastructure.

Briefly Theorising ‘Middle Powers’

The negotiation of power hierarchies vis-a-vis the overlapping interests of various nations’ spheres of interest is discussed by a number of scholars, mainly with regard to the interrelated security agendas of the ‘middle’ and ‘great’ power. Theorising on the soft power of entities could argue that the direct use of hard or military power by ‘Great Powers’ against each other might lead to greater losses, when accounting for the force that they could individually bring to bear. The position of the ‘middle power’ as a regional ally may thus enable the ‘Great Power’ to manifest its material and economic capabilities vis-a-vis a perceived rival.

At the same time, the role of the ‘middle power’ in acting as a manifestation of the capabilities of the ‘Great Power’ may partially tie in with the Segmentary State or World Systems analysis of the core (‘Great Power’) and periphery/semi-periphery (‘Middle Power’ and ‘lesser states’) in securing each other’s geopolitical interests and can be seen to align with earlier theories of the ‘rimland’ and ‘heartland’ in ensuring each other’s territorial integrity.

Great Games and Cold Wars

The dynamics between ‘Great’ and ‘Middle Powers’ may be observed as playing out across various geographic and timescales as various examples of the former attempted to expand their spheres of influence and exercise imperial power with the allegiance or coerced support of the latter.

In this regard, two terms that have become closely related with the concept of contests between ‘Great Powers’ playing out vis-a-vis the relative positions of ‘Middle Powers’ may refer to the periods of the ‘Great Game’ and ‘Cold War’.

The latter term, referring to a period of tenuous relations between the U.S.A and U.S.S.R in the 20th Century has had several major implications in determining several developments in the geopolitical organisation of the 21st Century particularly with regards to the formation of many nations’ foreign policy strategies. The concept of a ‘Great Game’ – while most famously referring to around two centuries of contests between the British and Russian Empires from the 18th to the early 20th Century – also holds importance in the implications of the term; the use of diplomatic outreach along with economic and material aid by a ‘Great Power’ in order to build up buffer states through favourable ‘Middle Powers’ – attempting to build forward bases for military operations, build infrastructure and political checks against a rival’s expansion, establish favorable relations as a precursor to gaining economic and political concessions, securing the stability of its own borders (both geographic and in terms of spheres of influence), etc. – while attempting to avoid direct conflict between ‘Great Powers’ and thus appearing constituting a strategic ‘game’ rather than a belligerent engagement.

Although the first iteration of the ‘Great Game’ was mainly based around the Emirates of Central Asia, and Qajar, Afghan, and Sikh Kingdoms, it can be compared to modern geopolitical equations vis-a-vis the role of economic and infrastructure-centered negotiations as tools for ‘Great Powers’ to exert their influence in the global order. A study of ‘Great Power’-related conflicts since the ‘Great Game’ may also show that the majority of clashes play out through proxies supported by the ‘Great Belligerents’ or with one of them engaging in direct fighting with a ‘Middle Power’ that is receiving material support from its rival.

The concept of a ‘21st Century or New Great Game’ has also been used to study the development of the People’s Republic of China as a major competitor to the United States of America vis-a-vis its and diplomatic economic networks. The Belt and Road Initiative with its ability to establish a significant Chinese presence in a ‘partner’ nation’s infrastructural organisations and potential facilitate a ‘String of Pearls’ to augment its martial capabilities provides several parallels to the overall agendas of the ‘First Great Game’, while the inroads that it provides in boosting a Chinese economic presence across Central Asia correlates more directly with its original historical setting.

However, the term ‘Great Game’ may just as easily be applied to most geopolitical contests across the globe where the conflicting interests of ‘Great Powers’ are seen to play out vis-a-vis ‘Middle Powers’ or less influential nations. The Russian Federation’s role in the dynamics of the ‘New Great Games’ also sees various iterations of the Russian state emerging as major case studies in the relations between ‘Great’ and ‘Middle Powers’ across the ‘First Great Game’, ‘Cold War, and in the 21st Centuries.

Conclusion

While the role of a ‘Great Power’ has often played a determining factor in the organisation of geopolitical associations across the world, studying the role of the ‘Middle Power’ in both contributing to and facilitating these associations may provide insights into the evolution of power negotiations in international relations across time.

Attempting to theorise the position of the ‘Middle Power’ in building buffers between ‘Great Powers’ may also allow for analyses into the nature of intra-state conflict across time, and thus hold importance in understanding development of these dynamics in the 21st Century. These ideas may become especially relevant when considering how international relations may pan out vis-a-vis possible contractions in the U.S’ international engagements and thus its relative reduction as a ‘Great Power’.

References

• Aggarwal, V. K. (with Kenney, M. A. T.). (2023). Great power Competition and Middle Power Strategies: Economic statecraft in the asia-pacific region (1st ed). Springer.
• Ahmar, Dr Moonis. ‘India and the New Great Game in Central Asia’. IPRI Journal, vol. 23, no. 02, Dec. 2023, https://doi.org/10.31945/iprij.230205.
• Atzili, Boaz, and Min Jung Kim. ‘Buffer Zones and International Rivalry: Internal and External Geographic Separation Mechanisms’. International Affairs, vol. 99, no. 2, Mar. 2023, pp. 645–65. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad028.
• Beehner, Lionel, and Gustav Meibauer. ‘The Futility of Buffer Zones in International Politics’. Orbis, vol. 60, no. 2, 2016, pp. 248–65. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2016.01.004.
• Bernek, Ágnes. ‘ The “Grand Chessboard” of the 21st Century Geopolitical Strategies of the Multi-Polar World’. National Security Review, 2015, pp. 5–28, https://folyoirat.ludovika.hu/index.php/nbsz/article/view/3415/2669.
• Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Updated with a new epilogue, Basic Books, 2016.
• Cabada, Ladislav. ‘Central Europe between the West and East: Independent Region, the Bridge, Buffer Zone or “Eternal” Semi-Periphery?’ Politics in Central Europe, vol. 16, no. 2, Sept. 2020, pp. 419–32. DOI.org (Crossref) https://doi.org/10.2478/pce-2020-0018.
• Cerulli, Rossella. ‘Russian Influence in the Middle East: Economics, Energy, and Soft Power’. American Security Project, 2019, pp. 1–17, https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep19825. JSTOR.
• Chand, Bibek. Buffer States in Sub-Systemic Rivalries: Analyzing Nepal’s Role in Sino-Indian Security Dynamics. 2018. Florida International University, Doctor of Philosophy International Relations. https://doi.org/10.25148/etd.FIDC006882.
• Chay, John. Buffer States in World Politics. Routledge, 1986.
• Chen, Xiangming, and Fakhmiddin Fazilov. ‘Re-Centering Central Asia: China’s “New Great Game” in the Old Eurasian Heartland’. Palgrave Communications, vol. 4, no. 1, June 2018, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0125-5.
• Ciorciari, J. D. ‘The Balance of Great-Power Influence in Contemporary Southeast Asia’. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 9, no. 1, Oct. 2008, pp. 157–96. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcn017.
• Cullather, Nick. ‘Damming Afghanistan: Modernization in a Buffer State’. The Journal of American History, vol. 89, no. 2, Sept. 2002, p. 512. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.2307/3092171.
• Diamond, J. M. (2019). Upheaval: Turning points for nations in crisis (First edition). Little, Brown and Company.
• Edström, H., & Westberg, J. (2020). The Defense Strategies of Middle Powers: Competing for Security, Influence and Status in an Era of Unipolar Demise. Comparative Strategy, 39(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/01495933.2020.1718992
• Efremova, Ksenia A. ‘Small States in Great Power Politics: Understanding the “Buffer Effect”’. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, vol. 13, no. 1, Mar. 2019, https://doi.org/10.51870/CEJISS.A130102.
• Furniss, Edgar S. ‘The Contribution of Nicholas John Spykman to the Study of International Politics’. World Politics, vol. 4, no. 3, Apr. 1952, pp. 382–401. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.2307/2009129.
• Gear, Mary Barnes. ‘Role of Buffer States in International Relations’. Journal ofGeography, vol. 40, no. 3, Mar. 1941, pp. 81–89. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/00221344108987723.
• Green, William C. ‘The Historic Russian Drive for a Warm Water Port: Anatomy of a Geopolitical Myth’. Naval War College Review, vol. 46, no. 2, 1993, pp. 80–102, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44642451. JSTOR.
• Guseinova, Olena. ‘Dangerous Europe Vs. Tolerant Asia: The Puzzling Survival Patterns of Buffer States’. Journal of East Asian Affairs, vol. 36, no. 2, 2023, pp. 95–142, https://www.inss.re.kr/en/publications/bbs/joeaa_en_view.do?nttId=41037147.
• Hamilton, Jason, et al. ‘A Friend to All Is a Friend to None: Analysis of Russian Strategy in the Middle East’. PRISM, vol. 9, no. 2, 2021, pp. 98–111, PRISM. JSTOR.
• Henrikson, Alan K. ‘Distance and Foreign Policy: A Political Geography Approach’. International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique, vol. 23, no. 4, 2002, pp. 437–66, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1601543. JSTOR.
• Holtsmark, Sven G. ‘Enemy Springboard or Benevolent Buffer?’ 91 s., 1992. fhs.brage.unit.no, https://fhs.brage.unit.no/fhs-xmlui/handle/11250/99539.
• Jamil, Ansar. ‘Central Asia’s Quest for Warm Waters: From the Caspian Sea to Gwadar Port’. Strategic Studies, vol. 37, no. 3, 2017, pp. 92–111, Strategic Studies. JSTOR.
• Jin, Sangpil. ‘Chosǒn Korea and Thailand’s Entangled History: Britain, Russia, and the Question of the Buffer State in Nineteenth-Century Asia’. Korean Studies, Mar. 2025 DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1353/ks.2018.a953782.
• Kane, Chen, and Miles Pomper. ‘Drivers and Characteristics of Russian Influence-Building in the Mena Region’. Implications of Russia’s Activities in the Middle East and North Africa Region for U.S. Strategy and Interests, 2021, pp. 13–32, https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep39746.7. JSTOR.
• Kennedy, P. M. (1987). The Rise and fall of the great powers: Economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000. Random House.
• Krishnan, Ananth, and Stanly Johny. The Comrades and the Mullahs: China, Afghanistan and the New Asian Geopolitics. HarperCollins Publisher, 2022.
• Lacoste, Yves. ‘Geography and Foreign Policy’. SAIS Review (1956-1989), vol. 4, no.
  2, 1984, pp. 213–27, https://www.jstor.org/stable/45349238. JSTOR.
• Lons, Camille, et al. ‘China’s Great Game In the Middle East’. European Council on Foreign Relations, 2025, pp. 1–33, https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep21525. JSTOR.
• Mackinder, H. J. ‘The Geographical Pivot of History ’. The Geographical Journal, vol. 170, no. 4, 2004, pp. 298–321, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3451460. JSTOR.
• McLachlan, Keith. ‘Afghanistan: The Geopolitics of a Buffer State’. Geopolitics and International Boundaries, vol. 2, no. 1, June 1997, pp. 82–96. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/13629379708407579.
• Meinig, Donald W. ‘Heartland and Rimland in Eurasian History’. The Western Political Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 3, Sept. 1956, p. 553. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.2307/444454.
• Menon, Rajan, and Jack L. Snyder. ‘Buffer Zones: Anachronism, Power Vacuum, or Confidence Builder?’ Review of International Studies, vol. 43, no. 5, Dec. 2017, pp. 962–86. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210517000122.
• Murtazashvili, Jennifer B., and Temur Umarov. ‘Nobody’s Backyard: A Confident Central
  Asia’. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2024, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/09/nobodys-backyard-a-confident-central-asia?lang=en.
• Neack, L. (2008). The new foreign policy: Power seeking in a globalized era (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Parenti, Christian. ‘Afghanistan: The Use and Abuse of a Buffer State’. New Political Science, vol. 30, no. 1, Mar. 2008, pp. 89–101. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/07393140701871240.
• Partem, Michael Greenfield. ‘The Buffer System in International Relations’. Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 27, no. 1, Mar. 1983, pp. 3–26. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002783027001001.
• Rezvani, Babak. ‘Russian Foreign Policy and Geopolitics in the Post-Soviet Space and the Middle East: Tajikistan, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria’. Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 56, no. 6, Nov. 2020, pp. 878–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2020.1775590.
• Rogan, E. L. (2010). The Arabs: A history. Penguin Books. DOI.org (Crossref)
• Ross, Robert S. ‘Balance of Power Politics and the Rise of China: Accommodation and Balancing in East Asia’. Security Studies, vol. 15, no. 3, Sept. 2006, pp. 355–95. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/09636410601028206.
• Sadiyev Saleh, Sadi, et al. ‘South Caucasus and a “New Great Game”: The Communication of Competition in Securitised International Relations’. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, vol. 29, no. 2, Apr. 2021, pp. 282–94. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2020.1826914.
• Schouten, Peer, and Jan Bachmann. ‘Buffering State-Making: Geopolitics in the Sudd Marshlands of South Sudan’. Geopolitics, vol. 29, no. 3, May 2024, pp. 1027–45. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2020.1858283.
• Southall, Aidan. ‘The Segmentary State in Africa and Asia’. Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 30, no. 1, 1988, pp. 52-82 https://www.jstor.org/stable/179022. JSTOR.
• Spykman, Nicholas J. ‘Geography and Foreign Policy, I’. American Political Science Review, vol. 32, no. 1, Feb. 1938, pp. 28–50. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.2307/1949029.
• —. ‘Geography and Foreign Policy, II’. American Political Science Review, vol. 32, no. 2, Apr. 1938, pp. 213–36. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.2307/1948667.
• Spykman, Nicholas John. ‘Frontiers, Security, and International Organization’. Geographical Review, vol. 32, no. 3, July 1942, p. 436. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.2307/210386.
• Starr, Harvey. ‘Territory, Proximity, and Spatiality: The Geography of International Conflict1: Territory, Proximity, and Spatiality’. International Studies Review, vol. 7, no. 3, June 2008, pp. 387–406. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.00011-i1.
• Stein, Burton. Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India. Oxford University Press, 1999.
• ‘The New Great Game’. CNAS, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/the-new-great-game-changing-global-energy-markets-the-re-emergent-strategic-triangle-and-u-s-policy.
• Umarov, Temur. ‘What Does Xi Jinping Want From Central Asia?’ Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2024, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2024/07/what-does-xi-jinping-want-from-central-asia?lang=en.
• Umarov, Temur, and Nargis Kassenova. ‘China and Russia’s Overlapping Interests in Central
  Asia’. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2024, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2024/02/china-and-russias-overlapping-interests-in-central-asia?lang=en.
• Unnikrishnan, Nandan, and Uma Purushothaman. ‘Russia in Middle East: Playing the Long Game?’ India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, vol. 73, no. 2, June 2017, pp. 251–58. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/0974928417700788.
• Weigert, Hans W. ‘Mackinder’s Heartland’. The American Scholar, vol. 15, no. 1, 46 1945, pp. 43–54, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41204756. JSTOR.
• Zhihua, Shen. ‘Sino-Soviet Relations and the Origins of the Korean War: Stalin’s Strategic Goals in the Far East’. Journal of Cold War Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, May 2000, pp. 44–68. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1162/15203970051032309.

About the contributor: Siddhartha Natarajan  is a fellow at DFPGYF Diplomacy, Foreign Policy & Geopolitics Youth Fellow at IMPRI and is a

Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.

Read more at IMPRI:

Tourism in India: A Diplomatic Soft Power Tool and its Role in Sustainable Development in India

Terrorist Safe Havens in Volatile States of Africa 

Acknowledgment: This article was posted by Bhaktiba Jadeja, visiting researcher and assistant editor at IMPRI.