Not All Superpowers Desire Spheres Of Influence
The article contrasts the US “spheres of influence” approach with that of Russia, and China's trade and investment dynamics revealing the differences in their worldviews and strategies.
In the contemporary geopolitical landscape, the concept of spheres of influence has resurfaced as a significant factor in international relations with the US increasingly invoking as the multipolar age raged on. The United States, Russia, and China each have their own approaches to establishing and maintaining these spheres, but their methods and objectives differ markedly. The article contrasts the US “spheres of influence” approach with that of Russia, and China's trade and investment dynamics revealing the differences in their worldviews and strategies.
A Continuation Of Unipolarity Through Other Means
The United States' vision of spheres of influence (SOI) is deeply rooted in its historical experience of unipolarity. During the post-Cold War era, the US emerged as the sole superpower, and its foreign policy often reflected an expectation that other nations would align with its values and interests. The approach was to micromanage regional affairs, to promote free trade as defined by US standards. This strategy is perceived as an imposition, and it has sometimes resulted in resistance from states that value their sovereignty and unique developmental paths as the US tends to forgo economic competition viewing any foreign influence in its perceived spheres as a direct militaristic threat.
China and Russia's economic rise came to be because of their excellent geoeconomic administration of their territories interacting with the world markers following classic diplomacy and neomercantilism. The US under Trump is signaling towards a cancelation of the market practices and a cancelation of diplomacy in order for the US empire to survive. The US approach to spheres of influence is often seen as a form of pre-annexation, where states within a given radius are expected to conform to the US as overseer in economic vassalage.
Commercial Partnerships vs Full Spectrum Dominance SOI
The concept of spheres of influence plays a crucial role in shaping international relations. The United States, Russia, and China each have distinct interpretations and implementations of this concept, reflecting their divergent geopolitical strategies and ideologies. While the US appears to approach spheres of influence with a mindset that leans toward pre-annexation and control, Russia and China advocate for a model that emphasizes trade, respect for sovereignty, and a more collaborative form of globalization.
The United States concept of sphere of influence is based on full spectrum dominance leading to the promotion of anti-democratic and anti-free trade policies. These by necessity manifest a Hybrid War matrix for transforming the targeted region into zones that align closely with US interests. The US seems to believe that by establishing a rigid sphere of influence, it can micromanage and govern these regions and more importantly have the political and legal influence to negate the Eurasian and the Asian civilizational states caravan from exchanging freely with the US led wests SOI, thus ensuring the survival of its remnant empire network in a post-unipolar world. But not all western vassals are accustomed to this level of servitude which undermines the autonomy of local governments but also fosters resentment among the populations of these regions, as they may perceive US involvement as an imposition rather than a partnership.
Russia and China, on the other hand, have adopted a different dynamic which Political analyst Andrew Korybko believes should not even be called a sphere of influence perse. As they advocate for a multipolar world order, emphasizing respect for state sovereignty and the promotion of economic cooperation through modified forms of globalization through neo mercantilism. These giants from the eastern hemisphere do not seek to impose their governance models on other states but rather aim to create mutually beneficial relationships that enhance regional stability with win-win business deals.
Critics might argue and point towards Russia's Special Military Operation as establishing a sphere of influence, but the SMO is a different situation because it was a defensive measure against an incoming enemy already organized and moving towards Russia after the 2014 Hybrid War coup. While the conflict has been framed by some as an aggressive expansionist move, Russia views it as a defensive action in response to perceived threats to its national security. A perspective is rooted in Russia's historical experience and its geopolitical considerations, and continuous NATO's expansion of aggression.
China's approach to its sphere of influence is characterized by its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and other economic cooperation frameworks. These initiatives aim to promote trade and infrastructure development while respecting the sovereignty of partner states. China's neo-mercantilist approach focuses on long-term economic gains and strategic partnerships, rather than short-term political dominance. This strategy has allowed China to build strong relationships with a diverse range of countries, from Asia to Africa and Latin America.
Russia has also undertaken several initiatives in international geoeconomics, investments, and trade such as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which seeks to create a unified economic space among its member states, including Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Additionally, Russia has been actively investing in energy infrastructure and projects globally, particularly in the construction of oil and gas pipelines to various countries, including China.
Through BRICS, Russia collaborates with other member states on various projects and initiatives related to trade, investment, and financial cooperation, participating also in other multilateral organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA). A sphere of influence for the Russians and Chinese does not mean they are entitled to free lunches from said regions.
Russia and China have cultivated a more nuanced understanding of spheres of influence, again if what they do should even be called that. Their strategies prioritize trade and cooperation, promoting a form of globalization that respects the sovereignty of nations within their regions. Rather than seeking to annex or dominate these states, Russia and China advocate for a neo-mercantilist approach, where economic interdependence is fostered through a strategy of building economic ties and infrastructure development across Asia and beyond, without explicitly or implicitly demanding political subordination from partner countries.
Russia and China's emphasis on cooperation and trade serves as a new model with fresh strategies that allow for a more stable international environment. The US strategy could benefit from a re-evaluation of its methods by moving away from a pre-annexation Rules-Based Order approach and return to more old-fashioned diplomatic methods to foster genuine partnerships.