从地缘上安排自身战略是一个大国向外延展力量的天然本能，它们的任何战略构想首先是地缘战略的。行之有效的国家地缘战略规划取决于对地缘利益的明确界定和对地缘威胁的恰当判断，需要明确重点以实现战略集中与战略兼顾的平衡。这是地缘战略的精髓。以地缘战略极限为核心的一组概念可作为诠释这一精髓的有力工具。对于某一可延伸的战略力量，其拥有有效控制力的可能的最远范围无限接近于一个确定的战略点（线），这点（线）即是地缘战略极限；它是战略力量有影响但不能有效控制的一个量度；它最重要也是最固有的特征是逻辑的极限往往大于资源/能力的极限。相对于地缘战略极限而言，战略底线是战略力量得以生存或保持必须控制的一个量度，指某国生存必须死守的战略边界。它和地缘战略极限都在地理上表现为一条相对固定的战略要点、战略边界。地缘战略的极限与底线并非孤立概念，战略起效的空间、战略磨合区域、国力可有效作用的区域等概念与之相辅。为了给发展中的中国东亚地缘战略提出有价值的对策建言，借鉴中国最主要的地缘对手——美国和日本——的经验意义深远。中美都占据大陆主体板块、都以海洋的方向作为地缘战略的重心。而若以对中国地缘战略的影响为标准，日本首当其冲。特别是，由美日搭建的两条岛链系绕在中国外海的地缘现实也使得分析美日东亚地缘战略极限与底线颇有价值。以战略文化、转化机制和战略谋略为核心的国家战略能力，是分析过程中重要的工具与方法。作为典型的海洋型国家，与生俱来的地缘劣势使得争夺海洋资源、维护海上权益、推行海洋扩展战略一直作为日本地缘战略的中心。由明治遗策设计出的投机性地缘战略大大超出了其战略能力，注定了其西绪弗斯式的悲剧命运。在此过程中，日本多次力图占领台湾而不得，事实上，台湾成为了日本东亚地缘战略的极限。不幸的是，日本一直认为台湾只是一条地缘战略底线。近些年来，日本加速突破地缘战略极限，最重要的表现是侵略钓鱼岛。摆脱雅尔塔体系的责任，颠覆雅尔塔体系，是其突破地缘战略极限的关键。在美国俄狄甫斯式的崛起之路中，东亚地缘战略的形成经历了从初入东亚时对抗英法俄、纵容日本到压制日本、联合中俄的借力打力的全过程，其初步认识了地缘战略的极限。之后，完整系统的东亚地缘战略才最终形成。然而，美国高估自己的战略能力，力图利用日本遏制中国，并展示其霸权和单边的一面。美国延续了对中国长达半个世纪的遏制战略，然而，以朝鲜战争和越南战争为代表的军事失败充分说明了其战略目标和资源间的悖论，同时无论是经济禁运、军事包围，还是外交封锁，均无一成功。在此背后，是美国地缘战略的能力逻辑与战略逻辑之不匹配，这正是忽视地缘战略极限的最显著表现。透过历史，可以归纳出美国亲手搭建的第一岛链正是其东亚地缘战略的极限所在。随着中国的崛起，美国退出西太平洋是必然的。通过对美日东亚地缘战略极限的分析，可以用模型来图解中美日地缘战略三角的态势。中美在战略磨合区域的发展趋势虽注定复杂，但美国有将极限退缩出第一岛链至第二岛链的准备，因而总体上战略极限的调整较温和；而中日之间的战略极限与底线高度重合于台湾岛—钓鱼岛一线，战略交锋面明显，战略磨合区域缺失，战略极限的争夺将比较激烈。可见，美国是中国东亚地缘战略中的主要矛盾，日本则是长期矛盾。中国需要在多个方面调整钓鱼岛到台湾的地缘战略谋略，其中收回钓鱼岛是当前最急迫的地缘战略要务，而与美日争夺海权则是必行之路。

The natural instinct of extending power outside is arranging their strategy according to the geography, that is to say, during all the strategic versions, the geo-strategy matters most. Effective national geopolitical strategy planning depends on the clear definition of geo-interests and the proper judge of geo-threats, requires clarifying the main point to balance the concentrate and the comprehension of the strategy. This is the essence of geopolitical strategy. The limit of geopolitical strategy, as the core of one set of concepts, can be used as a powerful tool to interpret the essence. With effective control, the most possible furthest range of an extending strategic force is infinitely close to a certain point(line), this point(line) is the limit of geopolitical strategy; it is the measure of the strategic power influence instead of effective control; its most important and inherent feature is the logic limits are always greater than the resources/capacity limits. Compare to the limit of geopolitical strategy, the baseline of geopolitical strategy is the measure under which the strategic power should be control to survive and maintain, the strategic border which one country should guard for surviving. Just like the limit of geopolitical strategy, it is shown, in geography, as a relatively fixed strategic points and strategic border. The limit and baseline of geopolitical strategy are not isolated concepts, which are complemented by the concepts, such as the space of strategy affect, the matching-up area of strategy, the zone of the national power effectiveness and so on.In order to put forward valuable suggestions for developing Chinese geopolitical strategy in East Asian, to learn the experience from the United States and Japan, who are the most important geopolitical rivals of China, has far-reaching significance. China and the U.S. have occupied the main plate, and they focus on the direction of the ocean as both geo-strategic center of gravity. If the influence of Chinese geopolitical strategy as the standard, the Japanese bear the brunt. In particular, the geopolitical realities that the two Island Chain locked the coast of China built by the United States and Japan, makes a valuable analysis on the limit and baseline of American and Japanese geopolitical strategy in East Asia. National strategic capability what strategic culture, transformed mechanisms and strategic tactics as the core is important tools and methods during the analysis.As a typical oceanic country, the inherent disadvantage of geopolitics has been implemented the competition for marine resources, protection of maritime rights, practice of oceanic expansion strategy as a geopolitical strategic center of Japan. The speculative geostrategic designed by the Meiji was far beyond the capacity of its strategy, it doomed to the tragic fate of Sisyphus’ style. In this process, Japan attempts to occupy Taiwan many times but failed to achieve the goal. In fact, Taiwan became the limit of geopolitical strategy of Japan. Unfortunately, Japan has considered Taiwan just as a baseline of geopolitical strategy. While in recent years, the Japanese has accelerated its pace and made a breakthrough in the limit of geopolitical strategy, the most important performance was the aggression of the Diaoyu Islands. Getting rid of the responsibility of the Yalta system and overturning it is the key point of breaking through the limit of geopolitical strategy for Japan.In the Oedipus style rising way in the U.S., the formation of Geopolitical Strategy in East Asia has gone from the whole process of resisting United Kingdom, France, Russia and conniving Japan at the beginning to ally the strength of China and Russia to suppress Japan, the limit of geopolitical strategy has emerging preliminarily. After this, the complete system of Geopolitical Strategy in East Asia is finally forming, however, the U.S. overestimate its strategic capabilities, trying to use Japan to contain China and to demonstrate its hegemony and unilateral side. The United States had lasted containment strategy to China for half a century, however, the military defeat of Korean War and Vietnam War fully illustrated the paradox between the strategic objectives and resources, in the meantime, neither of economic embargo, military siege and diplomatic blockade is success. This implies that the ability logic and the strategic logic of U.S. geopolitical strategy are not incompatible, which is the most significant performance of neglecting the limit of geopolitical strategy. Through history, we can conclude 1st Island Chain built by the U.S. personally is just the limit of geopolitical strategy in East Asia. The United States exit from the western Pacific is inevitable as the rise of China.The geographically strategic situation between China, Japan and the U.S. can be illustrated with the analysis on the limit of the U.S.-Japan geopolitical strategy in East Asia. Although the development tendency of the matching-up area of China-U.S. strategy is doomed to being complex, America is getting ready to move the limit from 1st Island Chain back to the second one, so the adjustment in the entire the limit of geopolitical strategy is not that extreme; While for China and Japan, there is fierce competition between them because both countries put their limit along the line from Taiwan to Diaoyu islands, which lead to an obvious frontal surface in strategy and a short of the matching-up area of strategy. So we can see clearly that, for China, the United States is principal contradiction of geopolitical strategy in East Asia, and Japan the long-term one. China needs to adjust geo-strategic tactics in many aspects from the Diaoyu Islands to Taiwan, and for the time being the most important thing is to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Diaoyu islands, which can be reached only through seizing the sea power from Japan and the U.S.