The Return of Spheres of Influence: How a New Yalta Conference Might Impact Global Power Dynamics

Introduction

As great powers engage in negotiations over the future of Ukraine, analysts increasingly draw parallels to the 1945 Yalta Conference that divided Europe into spheres of influence. Today’s discussions about a “new Yalta” reflect profound tensions between competing visions of international order: one based on great power politics and another rooted in sovereign equality and international law.

The outcome of this struggle could reshape global power dynamics for decades to come, potentially marking the end of the post-Cold War era and the beginning of a new geopolitical paradigm.

The Historical Yalta and Its Contemporary Relevance

The Yalta Conference of February 1945 brought together Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin to determine the post-war world order. This summit resulted in the division of Germany and Berlin into four allied zones, established the framework for the United Nations, and effectively carved Europe into spheres of influence.

While initially hailed as a diplomatic success, Yalta is now often viewed as a moment when great powers prioritized their interests over the sovereignty of smaller nations, consigning Eastern Europe to decades of Soviet domination.

Eighty years later, the symbolism of Yalta looms large in current geopolitical discourse. For Russian President Vladimir Putin, Yalta represents a time “when Moscow’s ruler was one of the Big 3 at the end of WWII—soon to become one of the Big 2. Moscow was at its apogee of strength and influence on the global stage relative to other powers”.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently celebrated the “Yalta-Potsdam order” as providing “the international system’s normative-legal framework for eight decades”.

This nostalgia for Yalta is not merely historical reflection. As one expert notes, “Today, Russia is in search of a new Yalta—an agreement that would not only confirm its control over the Ukrainian territory it currently occupies but also provide Moscow with a recognized sphere of influence”.

This vision directly challenges the post-Cold War international order based on sovereign equality and territorial integrity.

Competing Models: Yalta vs. Helsinki

The current diplomatic landscape represents a choice between two fundamentally different approaches to international relations, often framed as “Yalta versus Helsinki”.

The Yalta model epitomizes great power politics—major powers determining the fate of regions and peoples without their input. It prioritizes spheres of influence and stability through power balancing rather than democratic principles or sovereign equality. This approach would potentially validate territorial conquests and allow powerful states to dictate terms to weaker neighbors.

By contrast, the Helsinki model, embodied in the 1975 Final Act, represents a more inclusive approach that both “secured the borders of post-war Europe and committed its signatories to observing a common human rights agenda”. This framework emphasizes the sovereignty of all states and their right to determine their own future.

The tension between these models has become particularly acute in negotiations over Ukraine. While the Biden administration encapsulated its approach with the principle “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” concerns have emerged that Ukraine might be excluded from key decisions about its own future.

European leaders have similarly insisted on “nothing about Europe without Europe”.

Potential Global Power Realignments

A new Yalta-style agreement could fundamentally reshape global power dynamics in several ways:

Emergence of a Tripartite World Order

Several analysts suggest we may be witnessing the emergence of a world divided among three major powers: the United States, Russia, and China. Such a “tripartite power division” would likely “dismantle the post-World War II framework and establish a new order where force supersedes law”. This would represent a dramatic shift from the US-led unipolar moment that followed the Cold War.

In this scenario, “the global balance will undoubtedly tilt toward Chinese and Russian interests, reinforced by their satellite allies—including Iran and North Korea”. Western influence would potentially contract, particularly in regions where Russia and China have established strong footholds.

Diminishing Role of International Institutions

The original Yalta Conference laid the groundwork for the United Nations, but a new Yalta might paradoxically undermine the UN-based international order. As great powers reassert their prerogatives to act unilaterally within their spheres of influence, international institutions could become less relevant or be reduced to forums for managing great power competition rather than enforcing universal norms.

Donald Trump’s administration has “embarked on a significant departure from traditional U.S. foreign policy, emphasizing unilateralism over alliances and prioritizing economic negotiations over geopolitical stability”. This approach mirrors the power politics of Yalta rather than the multilateral frameworks that emerged in the post-Cold War era.

Rising Regional Powers

Interestingly, a new Yalta might create opportunities for rising regional powers to assert themselves. Turkey, for example, has “emerged as one of the biggest winners in this global restructuring process”. Having “shaped the new Syrian order in its favor” and “strengthened its position within NATO,” Turkey appears poised to expand its influence in a world where great powers focus primarily on managing relations with each other.

The key question for such powers is whether they will “merely be a participant in this new system, or will it be one of the forces shaping its rules?”. Their ability to navigate between competing great powers may determine their fate in a new global order.

Economic Dimensions of a New Global Order

The reshaping of global power dynamics wouldn’t be limited to territorial spheres of influence but would likely include significant economic dimensions:

Shift from War Economy to Production-Based Models

One potential aspect of a new global order is a transition “from a war economy to an investment and production-based model”. This would entail “a transition from military conflicts to diplomacy and economic agreements” and potentially a reduction in defense budgets, with resources redirected toward domestic economic development.

Such a shift could fundamentally alter the political economy of international relations, potentially favoring economic competition over military confrontation. As one analysis suggests, competition with China would be “fought through science, technology, and business rather than military conflicts”.

New Economic Alignments

The economic dimension of a new Yalta might also reshape trade and investment patterns. With traditional alliances potentially weakened, countries might pursue more transactional economic relationships across ideological lines. This could accelerate the fragmentation of the global economy into competing blocs centered around the major powers.

Implications for Sovereignty and Self-Determination

Perhaps the most profound impact of a new Yalta would be on concepts of sovereignty and self-determination—particularly for smaller states caught between great powers.

The Fate of Buffer States

The original Yalta Conference effectively created buffer zones between the Western and Soviet spheres. A new Yalta might similarly designate certain regions as buffer zones or areas of limited sovereignty. As one analysis suggests, the “weaker recipe for a new Yalta is to recognise Russia’s droit de regard over countries it already dominates” while the “strong version of this medicine is an implicit recognition of a Russian sphere of influence in some post-Soviet countries”.

Ukraine exemplifies this dilemma. Reports that “Ukraine has not been invited to key meetings between American and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia aimed at deciding what peace might look like” have prompted concerns that its sovereignty may be compromised in great power negotiations. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has declared that Ukraine “will never accept any decisions in talks without its participation”.

Challenges to International Law

A new Yalta would potentially undermine core principles of international law, particularly those relating to territorial integrity and sovereign equality. As one analysis notes, Putin’s “neo-imperialist ambitions have systematically eroded the norms of modern statehood—first with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and later with the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022”.

This represents a fundamental challenge to the post-WWII and post-Cold War legal order. Rather than being codified in international law, boundaries and spheres of influence would be determined by “brute force, orchestrated by the world’s three military superpowers: the United States, China, and Russia”.

Regional Security Implications

A new Yalta would have profound implications for regional security architectures globally:

European Security

For Europe, a new Yalta could dramatically reshape security arrangements. The Trump administration has “made it clear that NATO can no longer serve as a ‘free security insurance’ for Europe,” potentially forcing “European nations to take charge of their own defense”. This could accelerate calls for an autonomous European defense capability independent of the United States.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has warned that “Europe must have a central role” in negotiations and that any agreement without the EU would fail. Similarly, several major European powers issued a joint statement emphasizing that “Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations”. Their concerns reflect fears of being sidelined in decisions that directly affect European security.

Middle East Dynamics

The Middle East offers a preview of how a new Yalta might play out regionally. Recent developments in Syria suggest that great powers have already begun carving up spheres of influence. The fall of Assad and Russia’s withdrawal from Syria represented “the first major test of the new global order”.

Turkey’s expanding role in the region exemplifies how middle powers might position themselves in a new Yalta system. By “strengthening diplomatic and military cooperation with Syria’s new government” and “using its success in Syria as leverage in NATO and EU negotiations,” Turkey has enhanced its regional position.

Conclusion

A Pivotal Moment for the Global Order

The world stands at a crucial juncture, with the potential for a new Yalta-style agreement reshaping global power dynamics for decades to come. The outcome will largely depend on whether international relations follow the exclusive great power politics of Yalta or the more inclusive, law-based approach of Helsinki.

A new Yalta would likely accelerate several trends: the fragmentation of the global order into competing spheres of influence, the diminished relevance of international institutions, the erosion of sovereignty for smaller states, and the rise of regional powers capable of navigating between great power blocs. It would represent a fundamental challenge to the post-Cold War liberal international order.

As Finnish President Alexander Stubb observed, this moment presents a choice between Yalta and Helsinki—between great power politics and respect for sovereignty and international law. The decision is fundamentally about “who decides” the fate of nations.

Will great powers once again determine the future of smaller states without their input, or will affected countries have a meaningful voice in shaping their own destinies? The answer to this question will define international relations for generations to come.