By Onur Sinan Güzaltan
Back in October 2022, I had started writing under the title “Will there be a new Yalta in the end?”, but I didn’t finish it.
These days, with Trump’s return to the presidency, the possibility of an agreement between the United States and Russia, particularly regarding Ukraine, is being discussed. But is it conceivable for the US and Russia to reach an agreement covering all the conflict zones where they exert influence globally?
In other words, could there a new Yalta process?
A multipolar world, not bipolar
First, it is important to underline that today’s world is no longer the bipolar world emerged after World War II, but with the rise of major powers such as China and India, it has become multipolar. Therefore, unlike in the aftermath of World War II, it is no longer possible for Russia and the US to decide the fate of the entire world.
So, we are living in a different kind of balance. That being said, there are still regions and countries where both Russia and the US continue to exert significant influence simultaneously.
The fate of Europe
At the forefront of these regions is Europe.
I have written numerous times that the war in Ukraine is not merely about Russia preventing NATO from expanding into Ukrainian territory or asserting control over parts of Ukraine, but in essence, it is a struggle between the US and Russia over the fate of Europe.
Closely tied to the war in Ukraine, Europe has been experiencing social upheavals. Government crises one after another and an ongoing economic crisis, particularly in the UK and in other European countries that have sided with the US against Russia are clear indicators that the Ukraine issue is not confined to itself, but the real issue is the clash over Europe. The attack on the Nord Stream pipeline, which linked Europe to Russia, is a reflection of this “real issue”.
At this point, the European countries that have acted as US’s vassals in Ukraine have all found themselves in deep political and economic turmoil. As a result, political groups advocating for the normalization of relations with Russia have gained momentum in these countries (such as Le Pen in France and the AfD in Germany).
It is worth opening a parenthesis here to clarify that these political movements should not be hastily labeled as “anti-imperialist” or “progressive” simply because of their stance in the US-Russia confrontation. Ultimately, these are groups are in line with the interests of their own capitalist classes, promoting not an inclusive, but a Western-style narrow nationalism. An obvious example of how and to what extent these movements are “anti-imperialist” is how eager and swift they lined up behind Israel, Washington’s outpost in West Asia.
Returning to our question and main topic, the fate of Europe (de jure united under the European Union, yet de facto lacking a genuine unity, devoid of a common army and defense strategy, dependent on external energy sources, and having lost its influence over raw materials in Africa) is likely to be one of the key issues on the table during the negotiations between Trump and Putin. Yet here, I open another parenthesis to note that I don’t dismiss the possibility of a De Gaulle-like, fully independentist alternatives emerging in European countries.
Given Trump’s strategy of “turning back to the American continent” and his actions during his first term, it seems plausible that he would accept terms in a “Yalta 2.0” that would leave his European allies to fend for themselves. In such a scenario, Russia would leverage its geographical advantages to establish better relations with European countries and it would not be surprising to see the rebuilding of the Nord Stream pipeline in short term.
Following a “Yalta 2.0” we could witness significant changes in Europe, particularly in France and Germany, the heart and brain of the continent, like “new right” governments and structural reforms in the European Union limiting the influence of EU institutions over member states. As for the fate of Britain “the empire on which the sun never sets” that is quite a separate topic.
Will there be major shifts in West Asia?
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is another area where both the US and Russia exert influence.
The military coup in Syria, which led to the fall of Bashar al-Assad and the ceasefire between Palestine and Israel could be considered Trump’s first actions concerning the MENA region.
Trump has made it clear in his statements regarding Gaza that the US will not only maintain but also strengthen its long-standing policy of unconditional support for Israel.
At the same time, it seems likely that during Trump’s presidency, the US will continue backing ethnic terrorist groups such as the PKK, which pose a threat to the territorial integrity of Türkiye, Syria, Iran and Iraq.
After Trump’s election victory, Russia suffered a major setback in Syria and was forced to withdraw. The lifespan of Russian military bases in Syria doesn’t seem long.
Meanwhile, there are indications that Trump will take steps to reinforce American dominance in the Gulf states and obstruct their growing ties with Russia and China.
Amid all these developments, it is crucial to note that Russia and Iran have signed a comprehensive Strategic Cooperation Agreement, aiming to revitalize the North-South trade and energy corridor. This agreement also includes significant provisions concerning defense.
Israel’s future is likely to be the primary topic under the Middle East agenda in the Trump-Putin negotiations.
What will be the fate of Israel, given that it is the US’s outpost in the region and that 20% of its population consists of Russian immigrants?
Considering the approaches of both the US and Russia toward the Middle East, a Yalta 2.0 could discuss the following “solutions” regarding Israel:
- Iran’s security in exchange for Israel’s security.
- End to Israel’s occupation in Gaza.
- Reduction in the military influence of Hamas in exchange for Israel ending its occupation.
- Israel maintaining control over its occupied territories in Syria under the pretext of “security concerns”.
- End to the attacks against Israel by the resistance groups in the region, particularly in Yemen.
Israel’s structural aggressiveness makes it unlikely that these so-called “solutions” will achieve long-term success.
It is also probable that Trump and Putin will also seek agreements concerning the Gulf states, oil prices and the structure of OPEC.
The situation in Libya and Yemen, the future of terrorist organizations in northern Syria: The list of Middle East-related topics could be expanded.
Before concluding, let me reiterate the fundamental reality at the beginning of this article: the world today is no longer the bipolar system that emerged after World War II. The rise of new power centers, particularly China and India, has transformed the world into a multipolarity. Additionally, regional powers such as Türkiye, Brazil and Iran have their own decision-making capabilities.
Thus, the US and Russia no longer have the power to impose a new global order akin to the Yalta Agreement of February 1945. However, it is becoming clear that they will seek compromises in contested regions, considering the dynamics of power I mentioned.
As for Trump’s strategy of isolating China by reaching an agreement with Russia, a reverse form of Nixon’s “ping-pong diplomacy”, it seems unlikely to succeed under current conditions given the deepening ties between Moscow and Beijing and the lessons drawn from history.