From the Monroe Doctrine to the Multipolar World: How Spheres of Influence Returned in the 21st Century

By Stelios Fenekos,
Rear Admiral H.N. (ret), Chairman of the G3 Foresight Forum

Global politics is often portrayed as a linear progression toward rules-based order, international institutions, and collective security. Beneath this surface narrative, however, great powers have never ceased to think in terms of power, hierarchy, and spheres of influence. From the Monroe Doctrine of the nineteenth century to the contemporary rivalry among the United States, Russia, China, and the distinctive role of the European Union, the logic of geopolitical dominance remains deeply embedded in international affairs, albeit expressed through different instruments. 

The Monroe Doctrine: From Defense to Hegemony

The Monroe Doctrine, famously summarized as “America for the Americans,” was proclaimed in 1823 as an ostensibly defensive principle aimed at preventing renewed European colonial intervention in the Western Hemisphere. For the newly independent states of Latin America, it initially appeared to offer a protective shield against external domination. In practice, however, as the United States consolidated its economic, military, and political power, the doctrine gradually evolved into an instrument of regional hegemony.

The introduction of the so-called “Roosevelt Corollary” in the early twentieth century explicitly legitimized U.S. intervention in Latin American countries in the name of “stability” and “order”. The result was a long history of political interference, coups d’état, and indirect control across the region. While the Monroe Doctrine did succeed in preventing the return of European colonial empires, it also fostered deep-rooted anti-American sentiment and significantly constrained the effective sovereignty of many Latin American states.

The Brezhnev Doctrine: The Soviet Version of Spheres of Influence

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union articulated its own version of a sphere of influence through the Brezhnev Doctrine. Its core premise was that no country within the socialist bloc possessed the sovereign right to abandon socialism if such a move threatened the cohesion of the collective system. This principle was enforced brutally through military force, most notably in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Although the Brezhnev Doctrine collapsed alongside the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it left behind a powerful legacy: the normalization of intervention in the name of “higher security interests.” This logic has re-emerged in contemporary Russian foreign policy toward its neighboring states, where sovereignty is increasingly treated as conditional rather than absolute.

The Return of Doctrines in the 21st Century

In the contemporary international system, spheres of influence are rarely proclaimed formally, yet they operate effectively in practice. The United States during the Trump presidency, rhetorically revived the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine by reaffirming Latin America as a zone of vital American interests. The emphasis shifted away from the promotion of values and toward power politics, access to geophysical resources, deterrence, and unilateral action. Influence was exercised not only through military pressure but also through legal, economic, and security-based narratives that framed intervention as a matter of domestic protection rather than external domination.

A particularly revealing illustration of this modernized application of the Monroe Doctrine logic can be found in the Trump administration’s actions against the Maduro regime in Venezuela. Framed primarily in terms of narcotics trafficking, organized crime, and threats to U.S. national security, the operation demonstrated how contemporary spheres of influence are enforced through the selective fusion of security imperatives and domestic enforcement rationales.

Russia, under Vladimir Putin, has gone far beyond rhetoric. Its policies strongly resemble a modernized version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, marked by the explicit questioning of neighboring states’ full sovereignty and the use of military force to enforce a Russian sphere of influence. In this context, the principles of international law openly give way to the primacy of power.

China and the Silent Construction of Influence

China has pursued a markedly different path. It does not openly articulate a formal doctrine, yet it implements a functional equivalent. In its immediate periphery (Taiwan, the South China Sea, and Hong Kong), Beijing is prepared to employ hard power. At the global level, however, it favors economic penetration through trade, loans, and infrastructure development.

Latin America offers a telling example. China has systematically invested in the region to secure access to raw materials and energy, to counterbalance U.S. influence, and to diplomatically isolate Taiwan. Without deploying military forces, it has created economic dependencies that increasingly translate into political leverage.

The European Union: A Different Kind of Sphere of Influence

Within this triangular system of competition, the European Union represents a distinct and unconventional case. It lacks the unified military power of the other actors, yet it exerts influence through rules, markets, and institutional attraction. Its “sphere” is not one of coercion but of adaptation: access to the European market requires the adoption of European standards.

The EU does not possess an imperial-style sphere of influence. Instead, it has something far rarer: a sphere of attraction in which states change because they seek inclusion rather than because they fear exclusion. This form of regulatory power may be less dramatic, but it often proves more resilient.

Conclusion: The Return of Power and the Clash of Models

The post–Cold War world did not evolve into a fully institutionalized, rules-based international order, as many had anticipated. Instead, it is increasingly taking the form of a multipolar system in which competing models of spheres of influence coexist. The United States revives older doctrines through securitized and unilateral practices, Russia enforces its sphere through military coercion, China constructs influence primarily through economic dependency, and the European Union seeks to shape its environment through norms and regulatory power. The central conflict of the twenty-first century is therefore not merely over territory or resources, but over which model of power will ultimately define the future international order.