Back to Blocs: The New Age of Spheres of Influence

In international relations, a "sphere of influence" (SOI) refers to a spatial region or concept division where a state or organisation has a level of cultural, economic, military, or political exclusivity or predominant control. It remains one of the most pervasive phenomena in the practice and history of international relations, yet only rarely have they been taken up analytically. This concept had gained its base mostly in the post-World War II era, which is also known as the “Cold War Era”. 

Illustration by The Geostrata

According to Dr. Susanna Hast, Spheres of Influence has two core features: ‘exclusion of other powers and limitation of the independence or sovereignty of the influenced state’. Historically, major powers have taken on a leadership role in the international system, striving to maintain stability and order through implicit agreements that supported the governance of regional spheres of influence.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Though the concept has been added to the vocabulary of International Relations in the 20^th Century, the existence of the concept could be traced back to as early as the times of the Napoleonic Wars (1803–15). France tried to extend its power by taking over nearby lands and setting up governments that would stay loyal to them. However, the United Kingdom and Austria formed alliances to push back against French expansion. Meanwhile, the British and Russian Empires fought long and intense battles over control of Central Asia, especially Afghanistan.

The Hemispheric concept of SOI could be seen in the Monroe Doctrine (1823) of the US, which opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere, declaring any intervention by foreign powers as a hostile act towards the United States.

The post World War II era saw the tussle between two great powers- the US and USSR. The Yalta Conference of 1945 became a benchmark event for the demarcation of the Spheres of Influence of the US and the USSR. The allied forces met to decide upon how they would divide the control over the areas of Germany and the rest of Europe. The concept of SOI gained prominence from this instance.

US President Harry S. Truman in 1947 came up with the Truman Doctrine, which was a European version of the erstwhile Monroe Doctrine. This doctrine ensured the US’s control over western and central European nations through financial and military support, to help them resist communist forces. This ensured the US maintained its SOI in the Transatlantic Region. Eisenhower Doctrine did the same in the Middle East.

USSR then came up with their Brezhnev Doctrine to maintain its SOI in Central and Eastern Europe, by ensuring security and support to the soviet bloc countries. This is how the concept of SOI played out in the Cold War era.

END OF SOI

After almost 50 years of rivalry, the Cold War ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, leaving the United States as the world's leading economic, military, and geopolitical power. The world transitioned into a Unipolar system; a US-based liberal international order came into the picture. ( Experts) Following this pivotal phenomenon, a wave of scholars and geopolitical experts began articulating what they saw as the dissolution of great power politics, proclaiming one of the bedrock concepts of classical geopolitics—the Sphere of Influence (SOI)—as increasingly irrelevant. 

Among the most prominent voices, Francis Fukuyama advanced his seminal “End of History” thesis, asserting that liberal democracy had triumphed as the ultimate form of governance. 

According to Fukuyama, the ideological battles that defined the 20th century had reached a terminus, with liberal democratic ideals now universally accepted. He posited that nations would no longer engage in zero-sum rivalries but instead converge on democratic norms, focusing on economic growth, governance, and institutional reform. 

These concepts led to the complete disregard of the politics of SOI. Even the U.S. Secretary of State at the time, Condoleezza Rice, described this new world as one where great power was no longer about controlling spheres of influence or the strong dominating the weak. This perspective was later reaffirmed by her successors—Hillary Clinton stated that “the United States does not recognise spheres of influence,” and John Kerry declared that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over,” effectively ending nearly 200 years of U.S. claims to dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

Such pronouncements were right about the fact that something has changed in geopolitics, but they couldn’t or didn’t want to gauge what that change actually was. 

The concept of SOI never became obsolete; rather, the whole world in that moment became a de facto American sphere. The highly divided and demarcated concept had found a homogeneous base in the aftermath of the Cold War, which the policymakers and scholars couldn't identify.

RE EMERGENCE OF SOI

A tectonic shift was noticed in the first two decades of the 21^st Century. An unprecedented shift which the former Czech President Vaclav Havel described as, “it has happened so fast, we have not yet had the time to be astonished.” The U.S. share of global GDP, which was nearly 50% in 1950, has come down to nearly 26% today.

The reason being the emergence of other power centres in the world. China and Russia became the main challengers, while India, Germany and the UK have also made their own mark. With the emergence of powers, the politics of SOI has also come to the fore once again. The countries are gradually trying to chart out their control over their respective geopolitical spheres. To consolidate power, a nation needs to have relative autonomy and control over its allied nations and surrounding geographic area.

The recent flow of events with regards to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, or China’s militarization of the South China Sea, or India’s efforts to secure the Indian Ocean Region and the Indo-Pacific, emerging major powers like Russia, China, India, the Middle powers and the some of the Regional Hubs have showed their affinity to go back to the days of power politics based on Spheres of Influence. 

USA AND WESTERN ALLIES

This bloc, consisting of the US, its Transatlantic partners in Europe and the countries of the Five Eyes grouping (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), has its fair share of historical ties and cohesion. Right from the days of the Cold War and the formation of NATO, the Transatlantic partners have put in strength to maintain their SOI.

The Russian aggression on Ukraine has somewhat reinforced these ties and, in some ways, has changed the equations as well. The initial response to the Ukraine problem reflected the traditional response by this bloc, wherein they tried to isolate and sanction Russia heavily and militarise Ukraine, for Putin to back down.

With Trump becoming the president of the US, the response and the equations among the bloc have taken a different shape. In a watershed moment, Europe was lectured by the US president to provide for their own security and to fight their own battles. A tacit understanding is being forged with Russia in order to respect Russia’s own SOI. This brings us back to the old tradition of SOI-based politics.

President Trump’s statements on the inclusion of Canada into the US’s territory and the intent to reclaim Greenland and the Gulf of Mexico (which he renamed as the Gulf of America), echo the principles of the realist approach of Spheres of Influence. Similarly, Europe stepping up for their own security and going on a path different from that of the US, to secure its own SOI vis-à-vis Russia, shows the importance of SOI to them.

RUSSIA-LED SPHERE

The Russian intent to establish and secure its SOI is clear from its actions in Ukraine. The threat of NATO reaching its borders was taken seriously by Russia, and hence, they reacted in the traditional method of asserting military might. The 19th-century way to dictate terms to the weaker states.

Russia has not restricted itself to the question of Ukraine only; it has started to expand its SOI beyond Ukraine as well. Much of what it was during the Soviet days. Russia’s engagement with Belarus, Iran, or the cooperative arrangement with India all point in the same direction of Russia, which is trying to chart out its Sphere of Influence.

CHINA'S AMBITIOUS SPHERE

China’s rise and its ambitious efforts to forge its SOI over a really expanded geopolitical area are another glaring example of the return of SOI-based politics. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been a flagship program of China to reassert its control over the territories and resources of the countries based on the historical Silk Route.

China’s militarisation of the South China Sea and the aggression shown over areas like IOR and its neighbouring countries, like India, also show its intent to control its geographical surroundings and assert power to demarcate its SOI.

The technological and economic advancements made by China have also significantly challenged the Unipolar setting, which was enjoyed by the US post the Cold War. China’s intrusions into the African continent for access to natural resources show how the concept of SOI has not only returned to the discourse but also has brought in new dimensions to it.

INDIA-THE AWAKENING OF THE ELEPHANT

India has increasingly been interested in maintaining the sanctity and security in its neighbourhood. India’s increased focus on the Indian Ocean Region and the Indo-Pacific to maintain a rules-based order and free navigation has been its foremost effort to put its SOI in place. With the Neighbourhood First and the Look and Act East Policy, India is trying to gain control of the events and their effects on itself, in its immediate geopolitical sphere.

India’s use of soft power and cultural diplomacy is another example of how it wants to influence other countries. The leadership role that it is trying to fulfil for the Global South is all part of the same package named Spheres of Influence.

Often, these spheres are based on tangible hard power, such as deploying Brahmos missile systems to counter Chinese and Pakistani threats, as has been quite evident in the current Operation Sindoor taken up by the Indian Army, or on intangible soft power, such as the universalisation of the concept of Yoga or Vasudeva Kutumbakham, through initiatives like vaccine diplomacy.

EMERGING MIDDLE POWERS AND REGIONAL HUBS

West Asia, popularly known as the Middle East, has its own share of instability and conflicts, but the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, tries to maintain their own sphere of influence in the region, being the much financially and politically better-off powers.

On the flipside is there are other powers like Iran and Israel who have their own share of approaches to secure their geopolitical influence, mostly not aligning with the GCC.

Turkey is another major middle power with a strong military force and trading credentials, which is increasingly focussing on maintaining its own independent sphere, where it balances between NATO and Russia and in certain instances go out of its immediate geopolitical sphere to assert its Islamic identity, as in the case of Kashmir, a dispute between India and Pakistan, far away from its territory, which was again noticed in recent events wherein they became an active part of Pakistan’s offensives against India both militarily or diplomatically.

Other Middle powers like Brazil or Japan, too, try to assert their share of influence through platforms like BRICS and QUAD, respectively.  

WILL THE SPHERES LOOK THE SAME?

Although there has been a re-emergence of the Spheres of Influence, the dimensions and specifics of it will not resemble its preceding structures completely. Neatly carving up spheres of influence has become a much tougher task than it was at the times of the Yalta Conference. It was much easier to delineate and respect geographically coherent spheres of influence in a less globalised world, which was mostly dependent on steel and oil. 

In today’s world, the critical resources and the interests that large powers need are spread out across the globe. There is a rise of many regional and middle powers as well, whose spheres are often overlapping or conflicting with the spheres of the major powers. This creates a complex web of interests.

However,  much of the US now wants to retract from its security commitments to Europe; it cannot afford to totally abandon the issue and solely focus on its immediate geopolitical sphere. 

Ukraine’s rare earth metal minerals remain a catch for the US, irrespective of its current policy of retraction. After months of intense negotiation, the US and Ukraine signed a deal on April 30 2025, allowing the US preferential access to Ukraine’s minerals and energy reserves.

Taiwan can also be taken as an example of a flash point because the chips it produces are critical to a country’s growth and national security. The United States cannot afford to let China dominate access to those chips. The increased focus of the US on the Indo-Pacific is also for the same reason. 

China’s heightened and unchallenged activities in the Indo-Pacific, harming trade routes and escalating security issues, are a matter of concern for the US’s sphere of Influence. 

Similarly, India cannot afford to only focus on its neighbourhood and not focus on the African continent or the Southeast Asian region, where China has been stepping up its actions, sometimes under the cooperative banner of the BRI or the intimidating stance on territorial claims like the South China Sea. India is actively trying to build up relations and put up skin in these diplomatic chessboards.  

The concept of SOI remains the same, but it has expanded its vision and boundaries under the current global setting. Spheres of Influence are rarely static; they are constantly contested. The re-emergence of the SOI means that the global order is being tested. 

There can be two outcomes of this phenomenon – either the world will spiral back into the older eras of power politics, or after certain phases or cycles of crises and knee-jerk moments, the international system might reassert itself, going back to rules-based order, multilateralism and economic globalisation, which discourages expansionist ambitions. For now, it’s the New Age of Spheres of Influence. 

---

BY SAPNIL BISWAS

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com