Lorenzo Maria Pacini
In the media, it seems that only the USA and Russia are talking, but behind the scenes and away from the cameras there are many more players involved.
With Trump's return to the presidency, like it or not, there is talk of the possibility of an agreement between the United States and Russia, especially in relation to Ukraine. Is it realistic to imagine that these two powers can reach an agreement that includes all the areas of conflict in which they exert global influence? Because, let's face it, if that were the case we would find ourselves witnessing a new process similar to that of Yalta.
The first historic attempt
The Yalta Conference in February 1945 represented a crucial moment in the redefinition of the post-war world order, marking the transition from the anti-fascist alliance to the birth of a bipolar system dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union. The meeting between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin was motivated by the need to manage the imminent victory over the Axis powers, prevent the collapse of Europe and establish a new international order.
The agenda for the negotiations revolved around three fundamental issues: the reorganization of Germany and Central Europe, the role of the Soviet Union in the Pacific theater and the structure of the new global order. While the treaty sanctioned cooperation between the victorious powers, it also laid the foundations for a geopolitical confrontation that was destined to worsen in the following decades.
The treaty sanctioned various agreements, among which it is worth mentioning:
- The division of Germany and Berlin into four occupation zones (American, British, Soviet and French). This arrangement laid the foundations for the subsequent division of Germany into two opposing blocs.
- War reparations, particularly for the benefit of the Soviet Union, which obtained the possibility of taking resources from the German zones under its control.
- The entry of the USSR into the war against Japan, with the promise of obtaining control over strategic territories such as Manchuria and the Kuril Islands.
- The political structure of Eastern Europe, with the recognition of the Soviet sphere of influence in Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia. Despite promises of free elections, the Soviet presence resulted in a progressive Sovietization of local regimes.
- The creation of the UN, with the adoption of the principle of the right of veto for the permanent members of the Security Council.
One of the most important aspects of the conference was the decision to divide Germany into four occupation zones. The principle of demilitarization and denazification was accompanied by a system of war reparations, with the Soviet Union obtaining the right to demand resources from the controlled zones. However, the management of Germany soon became a battleground between the United States and the USSR, culminating in the future division between East and West Germany.
The case of Poland highlighted the ideological differences between the powers: while Churchill and Roosevelt insisted on the formation of a democratic government, Stalin imposed a pro-Soviet executive, exploiting the presence of the Red Army. This policy extended to the whole of Eastern Europe, where communist regimes consolidated under Soviet supervision, despite promises of free elections.
On a global level, the conference sanctioned the birth of the UN, an institution destined to replace the failed League of Nations. To guarantee a balance between the great powers, the right of veto was introduced for the permanent members of the Security Council, a measure that would later influence the political equilibrium during the Cold War.
Another key point was Soviet involvement in the war against Japan, with the USSR obtaining Manchuria, Port Arthur and the Kuril Islands in return. This agreement consolidated the Soviet presence in Asia and contributed to tensions in the region, culminating in the Korean War.
Yalta is often interpreted as a pragmatic compromise, but also as the beginning of the Cold War, as it sanctioned the division of the world into two opposing spheres of influence. Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe and the U.S. response through the policy of containment generated a dynamic of ideological and military conflict.
If for the West Yalta was the symbol of a "surrender" to the Soviets, for the USSR it represented a diplomatic victory that guaranteed the security of its borders. In any case, the conference marked the end of the nineteenth-century multipolar equilibrium and the beginning of a new era of international relations, dominated by bipolar logic and nuclear deterrence.
A multipolar world, no longer bipolar, and the future of Europe
First of all, it must be emphasized that the current context is very different from the bipolar one of the post-World War II period. The emergence of new powers such as China and India has made the world multipolar, making it impossible for the United States and Russia to decide the global destiny on their own, as was the case in the past. Despite this, there are still regions where both countries maintain significant influence.
Among these regions, Europe occupies a position of primary importance.
It has often been correctly pointed out by many authors and analysts that the war in Ukraine is not just a question of NATO expansion or territorial control by Russia, but represents a wider battle between the United States and Russia for the future of Europe. The effects of this war are evident: political and economic crises are affecting the United Kingdom and the other European countries aligned with Washington against Moscow in particular, demonstrating that the real crux of the matter is not Ukraine itself, but the structure of Europe. The policy of sanctions has been accompanied by the "policy of random incidents", as in the case of Nord Stream 2, to cite a very well-known example.
European states that followed the U.S. line in Ukraine are now in trouble, with the growth of movements in favor of normalizing relations with Russia, with citizens tired of fiscal pressure, political betrayals and a hatred instilled against their Russian neighbors. To clarify, it is important to emphasize that these movements should not be automatically considered "anti-imperialist" or "progressive", as they remain an expression of the interests of their economic elites and a narrow Western-style nationalism. An example of this is their rapid adherence to the pro-Israeli line, demonstrating that their position with respect to the United States is more pragmatic than ideological.
It is clear that the future of Europe will undoubtedly be a key issue in the negotiations between Trump and Putin. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that political figures similar to De Gaulle may emerge in Europe, capable of promoting a line more independent of the United States.
Trump's policy of reducing American involvement abroad could lead him to accept a "Yalta 2.0" style agreement that would leave European allies to manage themselves. In such a scenario, Russia could take advantage of its geographical position to re-establish ties with European countries with a view to Eurasian cooperation.
A new political order could emerge in France and Germany, with "new right" governments and EU reforms that would reduce their influence on individual nations. The fate of the United Kingdom, on the other hand, is a separate issue, because it is Europe's great enemy and deserves a dedicated discussion in future articles.
Prospects for the Middle East
Another region where both the United States and Russia exert their influence is the Middle East and North Africa.
The coup in Syria that led to the fall of Bashar al-Assad, as well as the ceasefire between Palestine and Israel, could be considered the first signs of Trump's new approach in the region. We are all aware of Trump's Zionism, but let's now consider the pragmatically political aspects, leaving the ideological ones aside for a moment.
Trump's statements on Gaza confirm that the United States intends to strengthen its historical support for Israel and it is likely that Washington will continue to support armed ethnic groups such as the PKK, considered a threat to the territorial integrity of Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Trump's election has led to a setback for Russia in Syria, with a downsizing of its military presence in the country. At the same time, the United States seems to want to strengthen its grip on the Gulf states, limiting their rapprochement with Russia and China.
Meanwhile, Moscow and Tehran have signed a strategic cooperation agreement to relaunch trade and energy corridors, with implications also in the military field, forcibly tightening the Eurasian Rimland.
A key issue in the negotiations between Trump and Putin will be the future of Israel, considered the American outpost in the region and with a significant presence of Russian immigrants. This has a lot to do with Europe, because the most important project now is the Cotton Route, where both Israel and Italy play a central role.
Among the possible "solutions" discussed in a hypothetical Yalta 2.0 could be:
- Mutual security guarantees between Iran and Israel;
- The end of the Israeli occupation of Gaza;
- A reduction of Hamas' military power in exchange for the end of the occupation;
- The maintenance of Israeli control over the Golan Heights for security reasons;
- An end to attacks on Israel by regional militias, particularly in Yemen.
Israel's structural aggressiveness makes it unlikely that these assumptions will translate into lasting peace.
Trump and Putin could also discuss issues related to the Gulf states, oil prices and the role of OPEC, as well as the situation in Libya, Yemen and the presence of armed groups in northern Syria. What will certainly come out of it is at least a draft of a world formatting agreement.
The criteria of deterrence, soft power and hard power could change in a matter of hours.
A world no longer dominated by the USA and Russia
I think it's now quite clear that the change in the world order will lead to a new world chessboard: we no longer live in a bipolar system like the one that emerged after the Second World War, the rise of new powers such as China, India and Iran has made it a multipolar context, with regional players making autonomous decisions, with the Global South emerging strongly and with a general and widespread different perception of international relations.
For this reason, the United States and Russia no longer have the power to redesign the world on their own as they did at Yalta in 1945.
What is clear is that they will continue to seek compromises in areas of greatest tension, taking into account the new geopolitical dynamics.
In the media, it seems that only the USA and Russia are talking, but behind the scenes and away from the cameras there are many more players involved. Let the games begin.