In today’s fast-changing world, where uncertainty and power rivalries are on the rise, some voices are calling for a return to old-style diplomacy—a new version of the 1945 Yalta Conference. This idea, often referred to as “Yalta 2.0,” imagines the world’s major powers—the United States, Russia, and China—coming together to divide up regions, settle territorial disputes, and determine the political fate of smaller countries. At a time when global tensions are high, this approach may seem tempting to some. But for China, the path forward does not lie in revisiting the power politics of the past. It lies in creating a peaceful, inclusive, and multipolar future.
From the outset, it is important to recall that the original Yalta Conference, while historic, was also deeply flawed. While it ended the horrors of World War II and contributed to the formation of the United Nations, it also sidelined the interests of many nations, including China. In exchange for Soviet participation in the final stages of the war against Japan, key Chinese interests in Northeast Asia were compromised without Beijing’s consent. As a country that once suffered from colonialism and great power bargaining, China cannot support any model that seeks to reintroduce a world order based on dividing the globe into spheres of influence.
China’s foreign policy has long been rooted in principles such as respect for sovereignty, peaceful coexistence, non-interference, and mutual benefit. These are not just abstract ideals; they are grounded in China’s own historical experience. China knows what it means to have its territory divided, its dignity trampled, and its voice ignored. That is why Beijing has always stood firm against unilateral changes to territorial status—whether in Kosovo, Georgia, Crimea, or elsewhere. Today, despite growing calls for the West to recognize Crimea as part of Russia, China’s position remains consistent: the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, including Ukraine, must be respected.
Supporters of Yalta 2.0 often argue that China could benefit from such a deal. They suggest that a seat at the table with Washington and Moscow would elevate Beijing’s global standing and provide an opportunity to advance core interests such as Taiwan and the South China Sea. But this view misses the point. China’s rise has never been about bargaining away the rights of others. Rather, it has been about building a more connected world where all countries—big or small—have a voice. For China, diplomacy is not a zero-sum game. True leadership lies in lifting others, not containing them.
In fact, returning to exclusive power-sharing arrangements would be deeply harmful to China’s vision for the world. China’s global strategy is based on open connectivity, economic cooperation, and institutional reform. Initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Global Development Initiative (GDI), and China’s leadership in the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) all reflect this commitment to inclusiveness and fairness. These platforms are not about dividing the world, but about bringing it closer together. A Yalta-style settlement, by contrast, would create divisions, deepen mistrust, and undermine the very institutions that China has helped to strengthen.
Moreover, the return of ideological conservatism in parts of the West, marked by skepticism of globalization and rising right-wing nationalism, poses an additional risk. While such political movements may find common ground with Russia’s cultural traditionalism or even aspects of Trump’s America First approach, they diverge fundamentally from China’s pragmatic and development-focused policies. China does not seek to impose its model on others. Instead, it supports a world where countries choose their own path of modernization and development.
The current U.S. push to re-engage Russia and draw it away from China—sometimes called a “reverse Nixon” strategy—also reflects a Cold War mindset that China does not share. While trilateral dialogues can help improve global stability, using them to isolate or contain any one country is neither sustainable nor responsible. For China, multipolarity means balance, not blocs. It means cooperation based on mutual interests, not coercion or side-deals made behind closed doors.
Indeed, as the idea of Yalta 2.0 gains traction in some circles, we are already seeing signs of strain in global relationships. China’s trade with Russia has shown early signs of cooling, with car exports and overall bilateral trade declining in early 2025. This is a reminder that trust and interdependence must be nurtured carefully. China is prepared to deepen strategic ties with its partners—but always on the basis of equality and long-term vision.
Equally concerning is the risk that Yalta 2.0 would alienate the Global South. Countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America have increasingly turned to China not only as a trade partner but as a champion of equitable development and reform of global governance. To now support a return to great-power bargaining would undermine this trust. It would send a signal that the future of smaller states can still be decided without their consent. China must—and will—stand against such a return to outdated thinking.
As we approach the 80th anniversaries of the end of World War II and the founding of the United Nations, we are reminded of the importance of these historic moments. They marked the beginning of a global order based on dialogue, not domination. For all its imperfections, that rules-based order gave the world decades of relative peace and prosperity. It is this legacy that must be preserved—not through nostalgia for 1945, but through renewed commitment to shared responsibility and sovereign equality.
The world today is not the world of Yalta. It is more complex, more interconnected, and more hopeful. Emerging powers want dignity, not dependency. Regional blocs seek cooperation, not confrontation. And the people of the world want peace, not power politics.
For China, the answer is clear. A Yalta 2.0 is not the way forward. What the world needs is not a division of spheres, but a convergence of minds. Not backroom deals, but open partnerships. Not great power privilege, but global progress.
Let us work together, not to rewrite the map, but to build the bridges that will carry all of us toward a more just, peaceful, and inclusive future.