The New Age of Spheres: How Spheres are Shaping the Present Age
Discover how historical spheres of influence are impacting today's complex geopolitical world.
Image: The United States Department of State
Author Analysis—5 March 2025: On the 30th of January, the new United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio was interviewed by commentator Megyn Kelly. During the interview, Secretary Rubio made many statements that Marco Rubio from many years ago, particularly when his now boss President Trump called him “Little Marco”, would have not made. When I heard these statements being initially reported, I had to check the video to be sure, simply because it seemed so out of character for Marco Rubio. Here is the section of the conversation that had many people talking:
“Secretary of State Marco Rubio: Well, I think we spend a lot of time in American politics debating tactics, like what we’re going to do, who we’re going to sanction, what letter we’re going to send or whatever. I think it really has to start with strategy: What is the strategic objective? What’s the purpose, the mission? And I think the mission of American foreign policy – and this may sound sort of obvious, but I think it’s been lost. The interest of American foreign policy is to further the national interest of the United States of America, right? I mean, every —
Megyn Kelly: America first.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio: Well, and that’s the way the world has always worked. The way the world has always worked is that the Chinese will do what’s in the best interests of China, the Russians will do what’s in the best interest of Russia, the Chileans are going to do what’s in the best interest of Chile, and the United States needs to do what’s in the best interest of the United States. Where our interests align, that’s where you have partnerships and alliances; where our differences are not aligned, that is where the job of diplomacy is to prevent conflict while still furthering our national interests and understanding they’re going to further theirs. And that’s been lost.
And I think that was lost at the end of the Cold War, because we were the only power in the world, and so we assumed this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem. And there are terrible things happening in the world. There are. And then there are things that are terrible that impact our national interest directly, and we need to prioritise those again. So it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not – that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet. We face that now with China and to some extent Russia, and then you have rogue states like Iran and North Korea you have to deal with.
So now more than ever we need to remember that foreign policy should always be about furthering the national interest of the United States and doing so, to the extent possible, avoiding war and armed conflict, which we have seen two times in the last century be very costly.” (US Department of State and The Megyn Kelly Show)
That statement was complemented by this statement later in the interview when Secretary Rubio made this comment, whilst answering a question about the early 2025 verbal poking from President Trump regarding the Danish dominion, Greenland.
“I think we’re going to have a Western Hemisphere that’s more secure and our national interests in all parts of the world – that’s the goal – are going to be more secure, from the Arctic, to Central America, to even Africa, and certainly the Indo-Pacific.” (US Department of State and The Megyn Kelly Show)
These statements reminded me of the recent analysis on the 9th of January from geopolitical analyst Alexander Mercouris which discussed the revival of “spheres of influence” and “spheres of interest” in international relations. This is particularly relevant in light of comments made by US President Donald Trump, and his Cabinet, such as the one above. The concept of spheres amongst those practising western international relations, once a cornerstone of western great power politics, appears to be making a comeback, albeit in a context of forced circumstances and unipolarity.
What are Spheres of Influence?
A sphere of influence is a geographical area within which a powerful nation exerts significant political, economic, and military influence over smaller countries. This concept has deep roots in diplomatic history, with examples including the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which asserted US dominance over the Western Hemisphere.
Mercouris explains that in a sphere of influence, the dominant power often has a degree of control over the governments and policies of the countries within its sphere. This can include dictating foreign policy alignments, economic arrangements, and even internal political structures.
What are Spheres of Interest?
A related but distinct concept is the “sphere of interest”. According to Mercouris, this is a more nuanced approach where the dominant power sets certain “red lines” or rules for countries within its sphere, rather than exerting direct control. These rules might include prohibitions on joining rival alliances or developing military capabilities that could threaten the dominant power.
Mercouris uses Russia's current view of the Arctic as a sphere of interest as an example, where they aim to protect their strategic and economic interests without necessarily seeking to control the internal affairs of every Arctic nation. TASS, the Russian news agency, explicitly referred to the Arctic as being within Russia's “sphere of interests”.
The Historical Moments of Spheres
Throughout the ages, powerful empires and nations have carved out areas where their influence reigned supreme. As Mercouris notes, American intellectuals like Walter Lippmann, recognised spheres of influence as a natural and potentially stabilising element of international relations, provided they were managed intelligently. The key was for great powers to acknowledge each other's spheres and respect those boundaries.
The concept of spheres of influence reached its zenith during the Cold War, with the world largely divided between US and Soviet spheres. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of US unipolarity in the 1990s led many to believe that such divisions were a thing of the past.
Now, as the world transitions towards a multipolar order, great powers are once again asserting their regional dominance. Trump's recent comments about potentially expanding US influence over Greenland, Canada, and parts of Latin America suggest a return to this older model of international relations.
Mercouris mentions this marks a departure from the “neocon vision” of the US as a global hegemon, with “the entire world effectively its sphere”. And believes Trump’s rhetoric signals a return to a more traditional great power approach, where the US focuses on its immediate neighbourhood.
Will Spheres with the New Trump Administration be as they were in the Past?
Don't expect this new era of international relations, including a modern concept of spheres, to be a consistent concept a Mercouris described. Given, the globalist-imperialist current in the United States is strong, practiced by many and supported by the largest economic institutions in the country. President Trump holds onto many globalist-imperialist or unipolar world tendencies. One such tendency was on display when the US President demanded US Dollar dominance from BRICS countries on the 31st of January.
Such a demand effectively requires the entire world to be at a base level a USA sphere of interest, thereby defeating the general concept of spheres being applied in a specific manner. It also neglects the actual financial initiatives from BRICS countries as stated in the financial sections 57 to 68 in the Kazan Declaration of 2024. Where amongst many initiatives, BRICS countries agree to create a multipolar financial system using peer to peer currency transactions, not a single currency.
Here are some quotes from the Kazan Declaration of 2024 regarding peer to peer currency transactions:
Section 63: “We welcome the BRICS Interbank Cooperation Mechanism (ICM) focus on facilitating and expanding innovative financial practices and approaches for projects and programmes, including finding acceptable mechanisms of financing in local Currencies.”
Section 65: “We reiterate our commitment to enhancing financial cooperation within BRICS. We recognise the widespread benefits of faster, low cost, more efficient, transparent, safe and inclusive cross-border payment instruments built upon the principle of minimizing trade barriers and non-discriminatory access. We welcome the use of local currencies in financial transactions between BRICS countries and their trading partners. We encourage strengthening of correspondent banking networks within BRICS and enabling settlements in local currencies in line with BRICS Cross-Border Payments Initiative (BCBPI), which is voluntary and non-binding, and look forward to further discussions in this area, including in the BRICS Payment Task Force.”
The current tendencies of the Trump Administration clearly continue concepts from the 1990s Golden Age of the unipolar world, but they will be challenged by the rest of the world, as reflected in the sentiment of the Kazan Declaration.
During the aforementioned interview with Secretary Rubio, he displayed many of these unipolar world tendencies, including with this quote:
“What’s been horrifying is that for 25 or 30 years, we’ve treated China as a developing country, and we allowed them to continue to do things that were unfair. We said, go ahead, let them cheat on trade, let them steal our technology, because when they get rich they’ll become just like us. They became rich, they did not become like us, and now they want to continue to have these unfair benefits. That has to stop.”
Regarding the claim, “let them steal our technology”. In line with the Reform and Opening Up concepts implemented during the presidency of Deng Xiaoping, and continuously revisited after his presidency, China allowed foreign investment into the country. But many of these investments were done under the concept of a joint venture, where both foreign investors and Chinese investors would operate institutions where foreign investment was involved. Subsequently, in the course of business, technology transfer between western companies and the Chinese joint venture occurred. A practice that was fully understood by all partners in the venture, with western companies often seeing it as a cost of doing business in the People's Republic of China. So no, there wasn't any technical theft en masse, other than select instances perpetrated by individuals that are relatively small given China’s economic size. They learnt from the technology that was legally imported into the People’s Republic of China. They eventually began to innovate upon it, and today we now see many of these innovations in the products, services, research, or open source software that is produced in the People’s Republic of China.
Also, the claim “when they get rich they’ll become just like us. They became rich, they did not become like us”. What Chinese leader substantiated that concept? Today’s western leaders, like Secretary Rubio, regularly make statements saying similar claims. These claims usually point to a crude justification that the western leaders of the 1970s used to accept China’s Reform and Opening Up initiative within their ideal concept of the world. This theory seems to be based upon a bastardisation of Convergence Theory from Professor of Economics Clark Kerr. The bastardisation creating the interpretation that China will become a Capitalist Market Economy, they made no such promises at the time. China’s Reform and Opening Up initiatives eventually created the modern Socialist Market Economy.
Implications for the Post-Unipolar World
The re-emergence of spheres of influence suggests a significant shift from the post-Cold War era of US unipolarity. During that period, the US and its allies promoted a vision of a globalised, interconnected world with universal norms and institutions.
Now, the growth in the economic and military capability of China, Russia, and growing multipolarity are challenging this paradigm. The United States are being forced into creating multiple geopolitical spheres of both influence and interest, involuntary. They would rather the post-Cold War era of US unipolarity, but given that growth of capability by other major countries, US unipolarity as we once knew it is over, and it has been for some time now. Only now we are seeing a new US administration that is realising this to some extent, whilst trying to hold on to what it can of US unipolarity. Expanding perceived US international dominance where possible, using its spheres as a tool in doing so.
We have seen this behaviour on display at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, where the new US Vice President James David Vance spoke regarding Europe being forced to implement an “America First” US foreign policy. NATO expansion at the financial expense of European members, whilst remaining a major geopolitical tool of the United States of America.
As The Duran’s Alexander Mercouris points out, even traditional US allies in Europe may find themselves caught between competing spheres of influence, potentially leading to a restructuring of long-standing alliances and institutions.
The recent shift in understanding on the part of the US could have implications for smaller nations, particularly within US spheres, potentially limiting their autonomy in foreign policy and economic decisions. It may also lead to increased regional tensions as great powers compete for influence in overlapping areas of interest.
One area of complexity is our region, Indonesia and Oceania. Where we fit will be complicated given our geographic location and countries like Australia and New Zealand having cultural, colonial and economic ties to the Anglo-USA sphere. Though it should be noted that both Australia and New Zealand largely trade with Asia. It is in my view that countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia, could create their own sphere. This sphere should be a Sphere of Mutuality, because we ultimately rely on each other in all respects to be prosperous countries. But this Sphere of Mutuality can only exist if Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia can cooperatively assert it from unfriendly countries to the concept. Currently, from my perspective it seems Australia and New Zealand to be some of the biggest blockers in creating a Sphere of Mutuality, due to their tendency to be the local enforcers of the Anglo-USA sphere.
But as the world understands the new age of spheres, learning about the modern applications of spheres of influence and interest will be crucial educational tool for policymakers, diplomats, and citizens alike.
FAQs:
Question: How does the concept of spheres of influence differ from imperialism?
Answer: In many situations they may not differ at all, particularly if we understand imperialism as stated by Vladimir Lenin. Chapter 5 of Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, explains spheres of influence in great detail. But if we apply the concept to the People's Republic of China, we need to acknowledge it is not an imperialist country, based on its actions. But they assert a sphere of interest over the south and east china seas, in order to allow for mutually agreed trade between countries through those seas. Protecting their capacity to participate in the world, where some countries wish to limit their participation with the rest of the world.
Question: Are spheres of influence legal under international law?
Answer: There is no explicit recognition of spheres of influence in international law. However, nations have historically asserted such spheres through a combination of diplomatic, economic, and military means. The legality of specific actions within these spheres would depend on the nature of the action and relevant international agreements.
Question: How might the return of spheres of influence affect global trade?
Answer: The re-emergence of spheres of influence could lead to more regionalised trade blocs and potentially disrupt global supply chains. Countries within a sphere might be pressured to prioritise trade with the dominant power, potentially at the expense of broader global economic integration.
Question: Can a country be part of multiple spheres of influence?
Answer: While it's theoretically possible, being part of multiple spheres of influence is often challenging and can lead to conflicts. Countries in such positions frequently try to balance between competing powers, a strategy known as “hedging”, according to Mercouris. However, as tensions between major powers increase, this balancing act becomes more difficult.
Question: How might the concept of spheres of influence impact international organisations like the UN?
Answer: The return of spheres of influence could potentially weaken global institutions like the UN by prioritising regional power dynamics over universal norms and cooperation. It might lead to more deadlocks in the Security Council and reduce the effectiveness of global governance mechanisms. However, it could also potentially lead to more stable regional orders if managed carefully by major powers.
Question: Do Eurasian countries acknowledge the concepts of spheres?
Answer: It should be noted that what is being mentioned in this article regarding spheres of influence and interest is reflecting discussions by people within the collective west. And much of the discussion of spheres that we see at the GSDC is from collective west sources. As far as we can tell, many Eurasian countries do acknowledge spheres, but their conceptualisation and practices may differ then from those presented here or by others from the collective west. If you are from a Eurasian country, please provide us with your perspective via a comment below. Though, the Eurasian concept of multipolarity seems to be heavily based upon nations mutual respect, sovereignty, allowing for all nations to economically grow based on their unique circumstances. Also, a high respect for International Law, based upon the UN Charter not the western rules-based-order.
Watch the Alexander Mercouris Lecture on Spheres:
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/8O8GM7E3esY
Alexander Mercouris, is a London-based commentator on international affairs with a special interest in the day-to-day manoeuvrings of international relations and comparing them with long term trends. He does this daily with his friend and business partner Alex Christoforou on their video media outlet The Duran and both of their own Video on Demand channels presented individually. Mercouris worked for 12 years in the Royal Courts of Justice in London as a lawyer, specialising in human rights and constitutional law.
Key Takeaways:
This article examines the resurgence of historical spheres of influence in today’s multipolar geopolitical landscape.
It clearly distinguishes between “spheres of influence” (direct control over regional policies) and “spheres of interest” (setting guidelines and red lines).
U.S. foreign policy is portrayed as shifting from a unipolar, globalist approach to one that reasserts regional dominance in response to rising powers like China and Russia.
The analysis challenges conventional narratives around technology transfer, emphasising that China’s innovations were built on legal, mutually beneficial investments.
Smaller nations face complex challenges as they navigate overlapping spheres of influence, with the article suggesting potential for a “Sphere of Mutuality” in regions like Oceania and Southeast Asia.
Contemporary events and documents, such as high-profile interviews and the Kazan Declaration, are used to frame and support these arguments.
We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.
