While it’s true that both “buffer zones” and “spheres of influence” are countries where another wields influence, the first focuses exclusively on the security sphere whereas the second involves other ones like economics and politics.
This strikes me as picking nits. If a buffer zone is established strictly for security purposes, and it lasts for any length of time, it's going to become part of the sphere of influence that created the buffer zone in the first place.
This sounds like Medvedev playing with words to make something sound better. Frankly, I don't understand its importance.
I see your point, but I believe that the finer details are still important.
Take pre-1991 Finland, for example. It could be described as a "buffer zone" between Russia and NATO, but Moscow didn't wield economic or political influence over it.
North Korea is another example, which while previously being within what can be described as China's "sphere of influence", is now no longer as influenced by it after recalibrating its foreign policy by de facto pivoting towards Russia.
Then there's Bangladesh, which could become a latent security threat for India but hasn't, though Delhi doesn't wield economic or political influence there but ties are fair and balanced.
Cuba could fall into this category too vis-a-vis the US after it neutralized potentially impending Soviet threats in 1962 but wields no substantial economic or political influence there even though it continues aspiring to do so.
OK. Lol. I'm nation-morphising, aren't I? I'm applying my own nation's behavior to buffer states and spheres of influence to yours, just assuming it would be the same. Those examples you cite prove it is not.
This strikes me as picking nits. If a buffer zone is established strictly for security purposes, and it lasts for any length of time, it's going to become part of the sphere of influence that created the buffer zone in the first place.
This sounds like Medvedev playing with words to make something sound better. Frankly, I don't understand its importance.
I see your point, but I believe that the finer details are still important.
Take pre-1991 Finland, for example. It could be described as a "buffer zone" between Russia and NATO, but Moscow didn't wield economic or political influence over it.
North Korea is another example, which while previously being within what can be described as China's "sphere of influence", is now no longer as influenced by it after recalibrating its foreign policy by de facto pivoting towards Russia.
Then there's Bangladesh, which could become a latent security threat for India but hasn't, though Delhi doesn't wield economic or political influence there but ties are fair and balanced.
Cuba could fall into this category too vis-a-vis the US after it neutralized potentially impending Soviet threats in 1962 but wields no substantial economic or political influence there even though it continues aspiring to do so.
OK. Lol. I'm nation-morphising, aren't I? I'm applying my own nation's behavior to buffer states and spheres of influence to yours, just assuming it would be the same. Those examples you cite prove it is not.