Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the resurgence of the concept of "sphere of influence" in international relations, particularly in the context of recent U.S. military actions and statements, arguing that this approach misjudges the current international system and is fraught with contradictions [1]. Historical Paradox - The notion of spheres of influence is based on historical conditions that required concentrated power and exclusive systems, which is incompatible with the current international principles of sovereignty and non-interference [2]. - In the 21st century, countries are seeking strategic autonomy and actively shaping international rules through multilateral mechanisms, rather than passively accepting arrangements made by major powers [2]. Stability Paradox - Proponents of spheres of influence believe that clear boundaries can reduce misjudgments and conflicts, but this overlooks the inherent dynamics of hegemony, which require constant intervention to prevent competitors from gaining influence [2][3]. - Historical examples, such as the Cold War, demonstrate that defined spheres of influence do not eliminate conflict but can exacerbate tensions through proxy wars and sustained deterrence [3]. Capability Paradox - The arena of great power competition has expanded beyond geographical limitations to include new domains such as deep sea, polar regions, outer space, and digital realms, complicating the establishment of exclusive spheres [3]. - Attempts to limit the development space of other nations through spheres of influence incur high political, economic, and security costs [3]. Economic and Technological Implications - Efforts to enforce exclusive control over regions or sectors can provoke adjustments from both internal and external actors, leading to a shift towards diversification and self-sufficiency [4]. - The logic of spheres of influence, when applied to economic and technological domains, may result in countries reducing reliance on single systems and reallocating resources through risk mitigation strategies [4]. Moral Paradox - A nation's global leadership is not solely determined by military and economic power but also by its ability to lead agendas that align with global interests and provide public goods to address global challenges [5]. - The recent U.S. strategic shift towards a power-centric approach has intensified the global governance trust crisis, undermining its moral authority and long-term leadership foundation [5]. Conclusion - In a highly interconnected world, exclusive spheres of influence are not only difficult to replicate but may also lead to new confrontations and systemic risks [6]. - Countries should embrace the trends of multipolarity and democratization in international relations to promote a more just and equitable international order, rather than reverting to outdated geopolitical thinking [6].