It’s obvious that you haven’t read — at least not well — any of the sources you talk about.

——

You say:

“The Nomos of the Earth, prefers terms without a clear metaphysical commitment, such as “open sea,” “terrestrial space,” and similar terms, within a historical and legal analysis of the ordering of global space.”

You can literally read Schmitt’s forward from Nomos where he says “The ties to mythological sources of Jurisprudential thinking are much deeper than those of geography” (p. 38, Telos Press edition) or when he writes “In mythical language, the earth became known as the mother of law. This signifies a threefold root of law and justice [=jurisprudence].” You also missed his whole discussion on the metaphysics of nomos and how it relates to the ontology of law. He goes into great depth about his “metaphysical commitments” regarding sea and land as it relates to the three-fold concept of nomos.

——

You say:

“If we apply Schmitt and Dugin’s interpretation to history, we arrive at paradoxes impossible to resolve within this land vs. sea dualism. Where does the Roman Empire fit into this classification? Dugin claims that Rome was a traditional land-based civilization versus Carthage, which in turn was a maritime commercial civilization – a sea-based civilization. But after the Punic Wars, Rome became the total sovereign of the Mediterranean and the greatest sea power of the ancient world up to that point.”

Earlier in your essay you cited Mackinder, but you obviously missed the part in Mackinder where he talks about how land powers can negate the need for sea power by conquering all the land around a body of water and essentially make it into a lake. Here’s what Mackinder says about Rome:

“He [Hannibal] was defeated, and Rome annexed the Mediterranean coasts of Gaul and Spain. By taking Cathage itself in the Third Punic War, she [Rome] made a "closed sea" of the Western Mediterranean, for all the shores were held by one and the same land-power...At the sea-fight of Actium, one of the decisive battles of the world's history, the Western fleet of Caesar destroyed the Eastern fleet of Antony. Thenceforth for five centuries the entire Mediterranean was a "closed sea"; and we think in consequence of the Roman Empire as chiefly a land-power” (Democratic Ideals and Reality pg 29 NDU Press 1942)

So half your analysis is wrong because you don’t understand what these authors mean when they say sea or land power.

——

You say:

“There have been traditional civilizations that were maritime powers, such as Portugal, Spain, and the Ottomans.”

You can’t even get the facts right about Spain. Schmitt in the Nomos of the Earth which you earlier called “his masterpiece of intellectual and philosophical maturity” says the following “England alone took the step from a medieval feudal and terrestrial existence to a purely maritime existence that balanced the whole terrestrial world. Spain was too terrestrial, and, despite its overseas empire, unable to remain a sea power.” (pg 173) Schmitt also says in Land and Sea: “Spain herself, although a world power, had to hire Dutch vessels to keep her overseas traffic going” and “Spain is but a whale stranded on Europe’s shores.” 

——

Furthermore, you say:

“we do not find in Mackinder such a metaphysics of geography, but simply the dimension in which geography influences the course of history…At no point does Mackinder mobilize a metaphysics of geopolitics for the purposes of ideological propaganda like Dugin.” 

Uhhh… why do you think Mackinder was writing his books? It wasn’t just some narrow academic interest, he was very much using his writings for ideological propaganda to say that Britain needs to make sure that no power becomes too powerful in the Heartland. To this extent he writes such lines as this:

“Why should we not solve the problem of Constantinople by making that historic city the Washington of the League of Nations? When the network of railways has covered the World Island, Constantinople will be one of the most accessible places on the globe by railway, steamer, and aeroplane. From Constantinople the leading nations of the West might radiate light through precisely those regions, oppressed during many past centuries, in which light is most to be desired from the point of view of humanity at large; from Constantinople we might weld together the West and the East, and permanently penetrate the Heartland with oceanic freedom” (Democratic Ideals, pg 121-122). If this isn’t ideological propaganda, then I really don’t know what is.

——

The rest of your article is just as bad. You obviously don’t really understand Orthodoxy at all. You say the land is effeminate yet praise the sea which is just as feminine coded mythologically as the land is. Like cmon man you say “while Russian Orthodox Christianity remained comfortably confined within the borders of the Eastern states.” By this comment alone I know that you understand nothing of Orthodox Ecclesiology nor of history.