Is Trump’s embrace of great power politics tenable?

US PRESIDENT Donald Trump’s move towards a spheres-of-influence framework for international relations represents a significant departure from the post-World War II liberal order that the US has championed for decades. This approach, which accepts that major powers should hold sway over their respective regions, marks a philosophical shift with profound implications for global stability and American foreign policy.

Proponents of this realist approach argue it acknowledges geopolitical reality rather than pursuing idealistic interventionism. They contend that the liberal internationalist project, promoting democracy and human rights globally, has proven costly and often counterproductive. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they note, consumed trillions of dollars and thousands of lives while failing to establish stable democracies.

A spheres-of-influence system might reduce great power conflicts by establishing clear boundaries and mutual recognition of regional interests. Advocates have long suggested this could lower defence spending, reduce American military commitments abroad, and allow the US to focus on domestic priorities while maintaining primacy in its own hemisphere. However, recent budget hikes for Western Hemisphere security suggest the cost of enforcement remains high.

This framework also appeals to those who view multipolarity as inevitable given China’s rise and Russia’s persistent regional ambitions. Rather than fighting this tide, accommodation through recognised spheres might prevent catastrophic great power wars. Historical analogies to the Concert of Europe, which maintained relative peace among major powers for decades in the 19th century, are sometimes invoked as evidence that such arrangements can work.

However, critics raise serious objections to this vision, especially in light of recent US actions in Venezuela. First, it fundamentally undermines the sovereignty and self-determination of smaller nations, reducing them to pawns in great power games.

Countries like Ukraine or the Baltic states risk losing agency over their own futures, forced to accept domination by larger neighbours. This violates core principles of the UN Charter and the post-1945 consensus that territorial conquest and coercive sphere-building are illegitimate.

Second, history suggests spheres-of-influence systems are inherently unstable. The Concert of Europe ultimately collapsed into World War I, and the Yalta framework that divided Europe after World War II required sustained American military commitment and still produced decades of Cold-War tension. Boundaries between spheres prove difficult to maintain, especially as power dynamics shift and nationalist movements resist foreign domination.

Third, this approach risks emboldening authoritarian powers while abandoning democratic allies. If the US signals acceptance of Russian dominance over Eastern Europe or Chinese control over the Western Pacific in exchange for a free hand in the Americas, it invites aggressive behaviour and undermines decades of alliance-building. Partners who have relied on American security guarantees may seek accommodation with regional hegemons or develop their own nuclear weapons, increasing proliferation risks.

Finally, economic interdependence in the 21st century makes clean spheres of influence difficult to maintain. Global supply chains, digital connectivity, and transnational challenges like climate change and pandemics require cooperation that transcends regional boundaries. A rigid sphere system might fragment the global economy and hinder collective action on shared threats.

The fundamental question is whether the return to spheres of influence represents prudent realism or dangerous appeasement. While the liberal international order has clear flaws and limitations, the alternative of great power spheres carries significant risks to both smaller nations’ autonomy and long-term global stability. The challenge for American policymakers is finding a sustainable middle path between unsustainable overextension and reckless abandonment of allies.