We hear all the time that NATO’s advance into Ukraine is seen as an existential threat by Russia. But Russia has long been viewed by Europe as an existential threat, going back to the time of Peter the Great, and as an existential threat to America since 1945. Russia has been the West’s historic enemy for a very long time.
Forget Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. America - the West - is now being defeated by Russia. If this is true, it is extremely serious. It would represent a tremendous psychological blow on top of the military economic and social significance, and would mark the end of Western dominance. Now add the prospect of defeat in Iran, along with the rise of China.
Trump, the “President of Peace” - really? He looks more like The President of Defeat. Sorry to say that as I do not want the West to lose its place, but why did he not do what he said he would do on his election platform?
By stepping up attacks on the BRICS, he has burned the bridges of a possible multipolar deal. All that America can do now is retreat to its own sphere of influence, its “zone of primacy”, and attempt - unsuccessfully - to manage global energy flows.
If you look at a map of the world, there is Eurasia on one side and the Americas on the other. Eurasia has its Mackinder line in Eastern Europe, and America appears to be building a similar line along the first island chain. Where do Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan sit in all this? Which side of the line are they on?
Then consider the consequences in Europe. Europe is pulling away from America - or the reverse, America retreating to its sphere of influence - and is building its own defence industry. This is funded from the public purse, incidentally, unlike its former car industry.
So we see the UK and Germany leading this rearmament. At Airbus Germany dominates the French in that joint partnership. Today it is Germany and the UK, and they sit on opposite sides of the EU divide. It raises a question: what might a rearmed Germany be thinking about once the fighting in Ukraine formally ends and if America steps back?
America Retreating to its Sphere of Influence
When people say America may “retreat to its sphere of influence”, they usually mean its scaling back commitments in Eurasia, reducing military involvement in distant conflicts and prioritising the Americas and nearby regions. In other words, moving from global management to regional dominance.
This would be a major strategic shift akin to Rome retreating behind the Rhine. It implies accepting limits to power rather than trying to shape the entire world order.
If America had any choice, one perspective says the US is overstretched, retrenchment is inevitable and a smaller sphere is more sustainable. Another says the US still has unmatched global reach and withdrawal would create power vacuums that its rivals China and Russia would expand into.
So from a geopolitical Western perspective, a new world order may not mean “retreat”, it may not be a clean shift. It could be uneven, partial, contested and resisted.
Glossary
Existential threat - a danger perceived to threaten the very survival of a state or system
Multipolar - a global system with several centres of power rather than one dominant hegemon
American Sphere of Influence - North America; Central America, South America
The Caribbean. Within this space, the US has exercised influence through:
Military presence and interventions
Economic dominance via trade and finance
Political leverage over governments
This does not mean total control. But it does mean the US sets many of the rules.
Post-1945 System
After 1945, the US built a much wider, global sphere through alliances and institutions. This includes: Western Europe via NATO, East Asia via alliances with Japan, South Korea, and others.
Global financial influence via the US dollar system.
This is not a classic sphere in the geographic sense. It is more a network of:
Military alliances
Trade systems
Financial dominance
In this extended form, some call this a hegemonic system, or an Empire, rather than a sphere.
Hegemony - dominance by one state over others in a system
Alliance system - a network of formal defence partnerships
BRICS - an economic bloc of emerging powers: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (now expanded)
Monroe Doctrine - a US policy opposing European intervention in the Americas
Western Hemisphere - the Americas as a geopolitical region
Mackinder line - derived from Halford Mackinder’s theory dividing land power (Eurasia) from maritime power
Sphere of influence - a region where a state exerts dominant political, economic, or military control.
Primacy - being the leading or most powerful actor in a system
Retreat (geopolitical) - a reduction in global commitments and reach
Regional dominance - focusing power within a defined geographic area
References
1. Halford Mackinder – Democratic Ideals and Reality (1919)
2. NATO official strategic concepts
3. BRICS expansion reports (2023–2025)
4. Council on Foreign Relations – Global power shifts analysis
https://www.cfr.org
5. Chatham House – Europe defence and autonomy reports
https://www.chathamhouse.org
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it clean, keep it lean