In geographical and geological terms, Eurasia is considered a single supercontinent encompassing Europe and Asia, with a total area of 55 million square kilometers, accounting for approximately 36 percent of the world's land area. The region spans the Northern and Eastern Hemispheres, stretching from Spain and Portugal on the Atlantic coast in the west to the Bering Strait in Russia in the east. Its geographical scope includes not only the main continental landmass but also surrounding islands such as the United Kingdom, the Philippines, Japan, and Indonesia. From a geopolitical perspective, Eurasia is not merely a collection of physical geography but also a socio-political entity; its precise boundaries have long been a subject of debate within academia, and as the foreign policies of countries within the region evolve, its strategic implications are undergoing a profound transformation.

Multiple sources confirm that Eurasia plays a critical geopolitical role in the contemporary international system. According to definitions by the Encyclopædia Britannica and World Atlas, the demarcation of Eurasia's boundaries involves not only geological structures but is also closely linked to socio-political interactions within the region. With the deepening of globalization, the autonomy of Eurasian countries in energy, infrastructure, and foreign policy has increasingly strengthened.

This trend is corroborated by research from the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS). A policy brief published in February 2026 by senior researcher Andreas B. Forsby points out that the foreign policy trajectories of certain Eurasian countries have posed challenges to the traditional U.S.-European transatlantic alliance. Significant rifts have emerged between the two, indicating that the Eurasian geopolitical bloc is drifting away from the Western camp.

Regarding the definition and influence of Eurasia, there are subtle but important differences in perspectives among various sources. Geographic information sources such as Wikipedia and OnTheWorldMap primarily focus on the physical and geographical attributes of Eurasia as a "single supercontinent," emphasizing the continuity of its geological structure. However, the Encyclopædia Britannica further notes that in a geopolitical sense, the definition of Eurasia's boundaries is not fixed but depends on how academia interprets the scope of the socio-political entity.

Addressing the rifts in U.S.-European relations, Forsby’s research report provides a political science perspective, linking Eurasian geostrategic shifts to the alienation of transatlantic relations. However, this argument has not yet gained broad consensus within the geographical community, meaning there is a clear gap in the interpretive scope between "Eurasia" in a geographical sense and "Eurasia" in a political sense.

This geopolitical trend has had concrete impacts on global industries and policies. First, the autonomous decision-making of Eurasian countries regarding infrastructure construction and energy supply chains has directly challenged the economic order previously dominated by the West. Second, rifts in transatlantic relations may lead to policy divergences between the EU and the U.S. when dealing with Eurasian affairs, thereby affecting the stability of global diplomatic and security architectures. For industries highly dependent on trans-Eurasian logistics and energy supplies, this geopolitical uncertainty increases operational risks and forces companies to re-evaluate their investment strategies and supply chain resilience in Eurasia to cope with potential future policy barriers or geo-economic friction.

However, scholars and policy analysts also caution against viewing "Eurasia" as a single, homogeneous political bloc. Despite the rifts in transatlantic relations, there are vast differences in policy orientations among countries within the Eurasian region, and it cannot be oversimplified as a binary opposition between "the West and the non-West." While Forsby’s research brief points out the existence of these rifts, it does not detail the long-term extent of damage to specific bilateral trade or military alliances. Furthermore, the academic debate regarding Eurasian boundaries remains at the definitional level and has not yet evolved into specific international legal disputes. Therefore, interpretations of regional policies should remain cautious to avoid misjudging dynamic geopolitical changes as irreversible fractures.

Subsequent observation should focus on the specific diplomatic actions of Eurasian countries after 2026, particularly the level of coordination with the EU and the U.S. regarding key infrastructure and energy policies. Additionally, whether the academic definition of "Eurasian" geopolitical boundaries will converge as the international situation evolves, and whether transatlantic relations can repair these rifts through diplomatic mechanisms, will be important indicators for assessing future global strategic stability. It is recommended to continue monitoring in-depth assessments of regional policy trends from think tanks such as the Danish Institute for International Studies, and to compare reports from different international media outlets on major public issues within the Eurasian region to establish a more comprehensive perspective.