The concept of 'Yalta 2.0' refers to a potential shift in the global order where major powers—specifically the US, Russia, and China—recognize each other's exclusive spheres of influence to ensure coexistence, much like the original Yalta Conference after WWII.
Based on the current geopolitical trajectory and the strategic shifts discussed, here is an analysis of its feasibility:
1. The Logic of "Spheres of Influence"
The feasibility of Yalta 2.0 rests on the mutual recognition of "backyards."
The US Stance: The Trump administration's National Security Strategy explicitly asserts that the Western Hemisphere (the Americas) is a US sphere of influence. This is evidenced by aggressive moves toward Venezuela, Greenland, and even pressure on Canada.
The Russian Stance: Putin views the former Soviet space, including Ukraine, as Russia's traditional sphere. Trump has signaled an understanding of this perspective, suggesting a willingness to trade recognition of Russia's influence for cooperation in other areas, like the Arctic.
2. The Arctic as a Testing Ground
The Arctic is where Yalta 2.0 could most realistically manifest.
Russian Dominance: Russia already holds a massive lead in Arctic infrastructure, with 32 military bases and a dominant fleet of icebreakers.
US Strategy: Rather than trying to exclude Russia (which is practically impossible), the US may seek a "Top 2" management system. By acquiring or influencing Greenland and aligning with Canada, the US could balance Russia's power while excluding or "down-regulating" China's influence.
3. Key Feasibility Factors
FactorFeasibility AnalysisPower DynamicsHigh. We are moving from a "rules-based" order to a "power-based" order where "might makes right."European ResistanceLow Impact. While Europe opposes this (e.g., the Greenland issue), their military and financial dependence on the US (NATO) limits their ability to block a US-Russia-China deal.Economic InterestsHigh. Trump prioritizes economic cooperation with Russia (Arctic resources, energy) over traditional alliances, which aligns with Putin's goals.
4. Major Constraints
Public Opinion: In Greenland, for instance, 85% of residents oppose joining the US, though 60% desire independence from Denmark. A "Crimea-style" referendum backed by US financial incentives could be a wildcard.
China's Role: China already considers itself a "near-Arctic state" and is deeply embedded in Russian projects. A Yalta 2.0 would have to decide whether to include China as a peer or attempt to sideline them, the latter of which could trigger significant conflict.
A Yalta 2.0 is highly feasible if the US and Russia decide that managing their own spheres is more profitable than constant friction. However, this would mean the end of the "liberal international order" and a return to Great Power Politics, where smaller nations (like those in Europe or Southeast Asia) lose their bargaining power.
This shift could drastically change how SpaceX (defense/satellite dominance) and AI investments are valued, as they become tools of national power rather than just commercial ventures.