In her 28 February 2025 speech in New Delhi, India, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen expressed concern over the resurgence of spheres of influence (SoIs) in global politics, highlighting how major powers are using economic, technological, and military coercion to fragment the international system. She warned against attempts to isolate regions and control dependencies, stressing that countries stand to lose from such divisions.
What exactly is SoI
A SoI refers to a state’s exertion of power beyond its borders and represents a specific form of international order. As Van Jackson argues, spheres of influence are not independent hierarchical structures but rather practices embedded within existing international hierarchies. Different theoretical perspectives in discipline of IR interpret SoI in distinct ways. For instance, geopolitical realism views SoI as military-dominated strategic buffers, rational contractualism views it as hegemonic orders maintained through strategic bargains, constructivism frames it as socially constructed spaces based on shared identities and norms, while relationalism explains it as network structures where central actors maintain dominance through structured ties.
An SoI is shaped by a combination of geopolitical, military, economic, political, and technological factors. For instance, weaker states are often vulnerable to dominance by stronger powers due to their geographical proximity and strategic location, especially when they serve as buffer zones or control vital trade routes. Military superiority—including alliances, bases, and security pacts—further solidifies this influence. Economic dependence, whether through trade, investments, or aid, also plays a crucial role, as does the availability of strategic resources like oil. Political alignment, regime stability, and ideological affinity can determine whether a state gravitates toward a particular great power. Advances in technology, media, and transportation have further enabled powerful nations to extend their reach. Additionally, domestic instability and interstate conflicts create openings for external intervention, reinforcing the weaker state’s dependence. Although global institutions and regional cooperation provide some counterbalance, history demonstrates that great powers consistently seek to expand or maintain their spheres of influence when their strategic interests are at stake.
Why it is the news now?
Since early 2025, the new US President, Donald Trump, has shaped his foreign policy discourse around a broader strategy to reassert the US’s traditional SoI in global politics. This shift was most evident through Trump’s several statements and actions: warning that the US might use military force to control the Panama Canal if necessary; repeatedly mocking Canada as the US’ “fifty-first state”; expressing a desire to annex Greenland for “national security purposes”; renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America; and most notably, imposing tariffs as a tool of coercive diplomacy. Furthermore, Trump’s dramatic stance on the Ukraine-Russia war was evident when, for the first time, the US ‘aligned with Russia in opposing a resolution that called for the immediate withdrawal of [Russian] troops [from Ukraine].’ In addition, the Trump administration’s decision to reach out to Russian President Putin marked a ‘watershed’ moment in world politics where Trump appeared to be aligning with ‘Putin’s throwback view of the world as a playground for predatory great powers to exert nearly unlimited control over the smaller nations that fall within their sphere of influence.’
This radical shift in US policy reflects Trump’s transactional view of international relations, where political considerations appeared to outweigh historical alliances or moral concerns.
Historical Evolution of SoI
The concept of SoI has historical roots in arrangements where dominant powers exercised control over weaker political entities without direct annexation. In such structures, a leading power asserted influence over neighbouring regions, which, while retaining some autonomy, were compelled to align with its strategic interests. These arrangements often involved economic dependence, political subordination, and military oversight, reinforcing a structured yet informal hierarchy of power. In this context, the Monroe Doctrine (1823) exemplifies one of the earliest assertions of regional dominance by the US in the Western Hemisphere, warning European powers against further colonisation or intervention in the Americas. Through the Berlin Conference (1884–1885), major European powers divided the African continent into their respective SoIs. After the end of World War II, the Yalta Conference of 1945 exemplifies the continuation of the SoI system. The conference saw the Allied powers—namely the US, the UK, and the Soviet Union—negotiate the post-war reorganisation of Europe. A key outcome was the implicit recognition of Soviet dominance over Eastern Europe, marking a transition from traditional territorial SoIs to ideological ones. Similar to the suzerain system, where regional powers exercised control while allowing limited autonomy, Yalta formalised a divided world order—placing Western Europe under American influence and Eastern Europe under Soviet control. This agreement set the stage for the Cold War, as both superpowers worked to consolidate their respective SoIs through military alliances, economic dependencies, and ideological allegiance.
The Revival of SoI in Contemporary Geopolitics
SoIs are not merely relics of the past. Russia’s military interventions in Georgia (2008), its annexation of Crimea (2014), and its subsequent military invasion of Ukraine (2022) have reignited territorial conflicts at the very heart of Europe, centred around competing SoIs. Several Western leaders in the past have strongly opposed Russia’s attempts to reassert its influence over the former Soviet republics. In 2009, the US administration (under President Obama) explicitly stated, “we will not recognize a [Russian] sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances.” Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Obama reaffirmed this stance, declaring, “The days of empires and spheres of influence are over. Bigger nations must not be allowed to bully the small…”
Yet, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 serves as the most recent example of how SoIs continue to persist in world politics. President Putin has defended Russia’s actions by arguing that “over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe”, the failure of which led to Russia’s last-ditch military intervention into the Ukraine to safeguard what it terms as its “near abroad”. In addition, the new US administration under President Donald Trump appeared to be aggressively reasserting US SoI by issuing threats regarding Greenland, Panama, Gaza, and Ukraine.
What next?
As the 21st century evolves with new dynamics, opportunities, and challenges, emerging technologies like AI are creating new arenas for SoI. In addition, pressing global crises such as climate change and pandemics will require states to engage in cooperative SoIs. As far as the future of SoIs is concerned, expert opinions diverge. While some argue about a return to the 19th-century style of SoIs, which is driven by great power competition, others foresee a more decentred and pluralistic global order where mutual accommodation shapes global governance.
