The Return of Spheres of Influence: Will Negotiations Over Ukraine Be a New Yalta Conference That Carves Up the World?

Introduction

As American and Russian negotiators meet to discuss the war in Ukraine, many observers draw parallels to the 1945 Yalta Conference, where the “Big Three” Allied leaders carved up post-war Europe into spheres of influence.

With Ukraine reportedly excluded from critical talks about its future, fears are mounting that history may be repeating itself in a dangerous new way.

The specter of great powers making decisions over the heads of smaller nations has raised profound questions about sovereignty, power politics, and the structure of the international order for the coming decades.

The Shadow of Yalta: Historical Context and Legacy

The Yalta Conference, held February 4-11, 1945, brought together US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin at the Livadia Palace in Crimea.

This summit aimed to shape the postwar world and represented a pivotal moment in global diplomacy that would define international relations for decades.

While initially hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough in Western capitals, the conference ultimately set the stage for the Cold War division of Europe.

The agreements called for “interim governmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the population” and “the earliest possible establishment through free elections of governments responsive to the will of the people.”

However, the following reality saw Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, with countries from Ukraine to Estonia under Moscow’s control.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb recently noted, “This is either the Yalta or the Helsinki moment,” contrasting the 1945 conference with the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which emphasized human rights and cooperation among states.

As Stubb explains, the choice is fundamentally about “who decides” the fate of nations. Will great powers again determine the future of smaller states without their input, or will affected countries have a meaningful voice in shaping their destinies?

Current Peace Negotiations

Exclusion and Alarm

Recent developments suggest troubling parallels to Yalta. Reports indicate that Ukraine has not been invited to key meetings between American and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia to decide what peace might look like.

This exclusion has prompted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to declare that Ukraine “will never accept any decisions in talks without its participation.”

According to a joint statement by the US and Ukraine following talks in Jeddah, Ukraine has agreed in principle to an interim 30-day ceasefire. However, this remains contingent on “acceptance and concurrent implementation by the Russian Federation.”

The ceasefire proposal is intended to create space for more substantive mediated talks involving Russia and Ukraine, but skepticism remains high about Moscow’s intentions.

Ukraine and its European allies have expressed alarm at the prospect of unilateral negotiations between Trump and Putin. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, has warned that “Europe must have a central role” in negotiations. Any agreement without Ukraine or the EU would fail, describing concessions to Russia before negotiations begin as “appeasement.”

Similarly, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain issued a joint statement reaffirming their support for Ukraine’s “independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity” and emphasizing that “Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations.”

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 represents excellent power politics at its most stark—major powers determining the fate of regions and peoples without their input. For Russian President Vladimir Putin, Yalta evokes a time when “Moscow’s ruler was one of the Big Three at the end of WWII—soon to become one of the Big 2.

Moscow was at the apogee of strength and influence on the global stage relative to other powers. “

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

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

The Biden administration encapsulated this distinction with the principle “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” a sentiment echoed by European leaders who insist on “nothing about Europe without Europe.”

The fundamental question remains whether the current negotiations will follow the exclusive Yalta model or the more inclusive Helsinki approach.

Potential Scenarios for Ukraine’s Future

Several potential outcomes for Ukraine have emerged from current diplomatic efforts:

The Trump-Putin Bilateral Deal

The Trump team appears to be charting a course toward “striking a new grand bargain linked to a mix of geopolitical spheres of influence and cross-cutting issues.”

This approach seems to leverage negotiations around Ukraine as a forum to negotiate a broader remaking of the international system, to use “a grand rapprochement with Russia to undermine the authoritarian axis linking Moscow to China, Iran, and North Korea.”

However, history suggests caution. As one analysis notes, “Great powers have great interests and rarely are willing to sacrifice them even when they are exhausted by conflict.”

European Independence or Fracture

A second scenario envisions European powers attempting to forge an autonomous approach when the U.S. withdraws from Ukraine support.

This could lead to a fragile ceasefire that collapses when Russia probes Western resolve. Under this scenario, “Trump compels Ukraine to accept major concessions, infuriating European leaders, who vow to forge an autonomous defense. NATO effectively unravels”.

The “Vichy” Scenario

Perhaps most alarming is what some analysts have called the “Vichy” scenario, in which American aid not only disappears but intelligence sharing halts, Europe fails to compensate, and Ukrainian oligarchs stage a coup against Zelenskyy. “The new rulers in Kyiv are the Vichy-type puppet regime that Moscow wanted all along. It puts Ukraine back in Russia’s sphere of influence.”

The “Beijing Surprise”

A fourth scenario sees China stepping in as a mediator. Under this arrangement, “Russia effectively cements control over occupied territories” while “Ukraine’s aspirations toward NATO and closer Western integration are shelved indefinitely.”

China would promise economic support for reconstruction, but critics worry this could lead to Ukrainian dependence on Beijing.

Implications for the Global Order

The outcome of negotiations over Ukraine will have profound implications that extend far beyond the immediate conflict. Some analysts argue we are witnessing the birth of a new global order with several key principles:

A shift from war economies to investment and production-based models

A transition from military conflicts to diplomacy and economic agreements

Respect for borders and elected governments

Strategic competition with China through economic rather than military means

Others suggest that the current US approach is primarily driven by a desire to “re-focus Washington’s attention on containing China’s belligerence in the Indo-Pacific and to ensure that Moscow’s blooming relations with Iran, North Korea, and China do not strengthen further.”

Conclusion

The parallels between current negotiations over Ukraine and the 1945 Yalta Conference are concerning but not definitive. While powerful nations may be tempted to resolve the Ukraine conflict through great power bargaining, significant resistance to such an approach exists both within Ukraine and among allies committed to Ukrainian sovereignty.

The original Yalta Conference represented both pragmatic problem-solving and problematic power politics. As Roosevelt himself recognized when discussing the agreement on Poland: “This agreement is so elastic that the Russians can stretch it all the way from Yalta to Washington without ever technically breaking it”. Today’s leaders face similar challenges in balancing immediate conflict resolution with long-term principles of international order.

What remains clear is that any sustainable international order must acknowledge the realities of power while respecting the sovereignty of all nations.

As one analysis concludes, “The only viable order is more inclusive and representative, reflecting a world where power is increasingly diffuse, and global cooperation is critical in meeting threats such as climate change and human insecurity”.

Whether negotiations over Ukraine will result in a “New Yalta” remains uncertain. What is certain is that the outcome will shape international relations for decades to come, potentially determining whether we live in a world governed by spheres of influence or by rules and principles applicable to all nations regardless of size or military might.