Spheres of influence and the persistence of great-power politics

19/01/2026
08:19

Understanding the complex reality behind geopolitical dominance and its limits

Spheres of influence remain central in global politics, reflecting great powers' efforts to control their neighborhoods despite normative objections and global interdependence.

Spheres of influence: a geopolitical reality

The term “spheres of influence” has gained renewed prominence amid recent U.S. foreign policy actions, including its posture toward Venezuela and Greenland. It reflects a worldview where dominant powers seek uncontested control over their immediate neighborhoods, often sidelining international law and collective norms. This perspective aligns with former U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach favoring strong nations making deals directly without regard for broader legal or moral frameworks.

The normative debate and practical realities

Critics argue that spheres of influence violate principles of sovereignty and equality enshrined in international law, such as the U.N. Charter, by enabling powerful states to coerce weaker neighbors economically or militarily. They maintain all states should freely decide their alliances and trade without interference. However, this idealized vision clashes with the entrenched reality that great powers naturally prioritize their regional security and influence, often enforcing these interests by leveraging their military and economic might.

Why do spheres of influence endure?

Three main factors sustain spheres of influence in world politics:

Regional stakes: Great powers invest disproportionately in nearby areas where threats can emerge rapidly, unlike distant powers who show limited willingness to expend resources.
Economic integration: Despite globalization, trade remains regionally concentrated, giving dominant regional economies leverage over their neighbors’ economic choices.

Military reach: Geographic proximity enables powers to project force credibly, deterring local actors from defying the dominant influence.

These factors explain why attempts to integrate countries like Ukraine into Western alliances proved contentious, as Russia’s greater regional interest spurred strong opposition.

Historical lessons on managing spheres

The Cold War division of Europe is often cited as an example of stable spheres of influence, with the U.S. and Soviet Union each dominating halves of the continent. Yet, this peace was fragile, maintained under the shadow of nuclear deterrence and frequent crises, and acceptance of each other’s dominance was far from complete. Earlier colonial rivalries further illustrate how spheres drawn on maps often led to conflict and contestation rather than lasting order.

Contemporary implications and challenges

Great powers’ interests near their borders remain vital considerations for strategy, as ignoring others’ sensitivities risks conflict escalation. Nevertheless, globalization complicates strict spheres of influence, as economies are interdependent and cannot be easily walled off without significant costs. Attempts to exclude rivals economically or politically provoke backlash and may empower dissenting countries within spheres to seek outside support.

Moreover, competition outside established spheres, in regions like Africa and the Middle East, provides arenas where powers continue to jockey for advantage, undermining the notion that spheres can fully contain rivalry.

The fragile balance of great-power competition

Spheres of influence tend to work best when subtle and benevolent, but aggressive assertions—such as overt U.S. claims over the Western Hemisphere—can fuel resentment and empower rivals. While acknowledging spheres can inform prudent diplomacy, relying on them as a tool for peace is insufficient. Competition persists as powers probe each other’s claims and intervene in each other’s regions, making global stability an ongoing challenge.

Conclusion

Spheres of influence remain an unavoidable feature of international relations shaped by geography, economics, and power asymmetries. While they offer imperfect mechanisms to manage rivalry, they neither eliminate competition nor align neatly with ideals of sovereignty and equality. Navigating their complexities requires balancing respect for regional sensitivities with the realities of global interdependence and the enduring ambitions of great powers.

Fonte: foreignpolicy.com