The new Yalta
16/4/25 21:23![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
asthfghl posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAs global tensions intensify, the geopolitical landscape is shifting dramatically. While China asserts itself with growing confidence, and global powers compete for influence, Trump is taking an active diplomatic approach toward Putin, aiming to broker an end to the war in Ukraine. Though talks have reportedly led to a proposed 30-day ceasefire and reduced strikes in the Black Sea, the broader implications suggest something more complex: a reordering of global power reminiscent of post-war summits like Yalta:
Trump's approach reflects a worldview in which powerful nations divide spheres of influence and avoid interfering in each other's regions. This realpolitik mindset raises concerns about the future of Ukraine and, by extension, Europe. If Ukraine's fate is decided without its input, it signals a troubling shift: Europe's autonomy and security could be negotiated away behind closed doors.
Eastern Europe feels increasingly exposed. There are growing signs that Russia is deepening its influence in countries like Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and others. From election interference to subtle policy shaping, Moscow appears to be leveraging discontent and fueling a political climate more favorable to authoritarianism. This is happening alongside protests and resistance in several nations where leaders are seen as leaning toward the Kremlin.
Meanwhile, Trump's administration seems ready to scale back America's commitments abroad, encouraging Europe to take on more responsibility for its own defense. The US is pivoting toward confronting China in the Pacific, while also consolidating influence closer to home in the Western Hemisphere. Trump's rhetoric about Greenland, the Panama Canal, and even Canada highlights a strategic inward shift, one that leaves Eastern Europe vulnerable.
In Central Asia, a new power contest is brewing between China and Russia. Kazakhstan, wary of Russian expansionism, is leaning into Beijing's sphere of influence. Mongolia finds itself dependent on both powers, reflecting the region's precarious balancing act. China's growing clout in the region suggests it's not just the US that's recalibrating its global footprint.
As for Taiwan, the risk of a major confrontation remains real. China's military exercises near the island are testing boundaries, and it's unclear how a second Trump administration might respond to open conflict. There's even speculation that tacit agreements could emerge where the US chooses not to challenge Chinese moves in places like the South China Sea. If that happens, we may be watching the quiet redrawing of global influence zones in real time. Like on this map:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-putin-map-china-xi-2058157
Trump's approach reflects a worldview in which powerful nations divide spheres of influence and avoid interfering in each other's regions. This realpolitik mindset raises concerns about the future of Ukraine and, by extension, Europe. If Ukraine's fate is decided without its input, it signals a troubling shift: Europe's autonomy and security could be negotiated away behind closed doors.
Eastern Europe feels increasingly exposed. There are growing signs that Russia is deepening its influence in countries like Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and others. From election interference to subtle policy shaping, Moscow appears to be leveraging discontent and fueling a political climate more favorable to authoritarianism. This is happening alongside protests and resistance in several nations where leaders are seen as leaning toward the Kremlin.
Meanwhile, Trump's administration seems ready to scale back America's commitments abroad, encouraging Europe to take on more responsibility for its own defense. The US is pivoting toward confronting China in the Pacific, while also consolidating influence closer to home in the Western Hemisphere. Trump's rhetoric about Greenland, the Panama Canal, and even Canada highlights a strategic inward shift, one that leaves Eastern Europe vulnerable.
In Central Asia, a new power contest is brewing between China and Russia. Kazakhstan, wary of Russian expansionism, is leaning into Beijing's sphere of influence. Mongolia finds itself dependent on both powers, reflecting the region's precarious balancing act. China's growing clout in the region suggests it's not just the US that's recalibrating its global footprint.
As for Taiwan, the risk of a major confrontation remains real. China's military exercises near the island are testing boundaries, and it's unclear how a second Trump administration might respond to open conflict. There's even speculation that tacit agreements could emerge where the US chooses not to challenge Chinese moves in places like the South China Sea. If that happens, we may be watching the quiet redrawing of global influence zones in real time. Like on this map:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-putin-map-china-xi-2058157
Yes ...
Date: 16/4/25 18:57 (UTC)Everyone's autonomy can be negotiated away. Now you know how occupied tribal nations feel.
But that's not the worst damage. The worst is that nuclear disarmament is no longer a decent thing to ask of countries. Ukraine had nukes, but gave them up because other countries -- including Russia! -- promised to protect it. Nobody's ever going to believe that again. If you don't have nukes, you're anyone's meat and nobody will protect you, not really. So that screws all of us.
>>Eastern Europe feels increasingly exposed. There are growing signs that Russia is deepening its influence in countries like Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and others.<<
Well duh. That's why it was vital for everyone to defend Ukraine. They didn't want to make that commitment. Now Putin knows he can get away with mass murder, destruction, and land left. So he'll keep doing it, and people won't care until he's knocking down their door.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 18/4/25 20:53 (UTC)And yes, your point about occupied nations resonates. What's happening to Ukraine is, in many ways, a grim echo of what's happened to others for centuries. Having their fate decided without agency, often with devastating consequences. It's a pattern we keep repeating, and that makes it all the more important to break it now.
Regarding Eastern Europe: I agree that defending Ukraine was about more than just Ukraine. It was about drawing a line early before the repercussions spilled over. Now we're watching those repercussions unfold in real time, not just in military terms, but in political influence, democratic erosion, and growing instability. The cost of hesitation is becoming painfully clear.
The challenge now is: can we find a way forward that doesn't just react to Putin's aggression, but actively reshapes the system that allowed this to happen? Because if we don't, we're just waiting for the next domino to fall.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 19/4/25 08:44 (UTC)Well, it's about to get a great deal worse. The rest of the world is getting tired of the war and starting to demand that Ukraine give in to Russia. The problem with that is, if Putin keeps one inch of Urkrainian land, he wins. If he merely escapes punishment for mass murder and destruction of property, he wins. So then he'll do more of it.
>>The challenge now is: can we find a way forward that doesn't just react to Putin's aggression, but actively reshapes the system that allowed this to happen? Because if we don't, we're just waiting for the next domino to fall.<<
My suggestion is that the smaller, under-recognized nations band together for mutual defense against the big bully states. Places like France may be too squeamish to respond at need, but small nations know what it's like to be the grass when the elephants are fighting. And enough small groups can add up to real power.