 "Myth of ‘new Yalta’: Why Trump won't let China have its way with Taiwan")
Historical references in news coverage have become one of the biggest red flags. At this point, it’s best to ignore any report that compares current events to past ones. The latest trend? The belief that we are witnessing a new Yalta.
The Yalta Conference of February 1945 was when Allied leaders from the United States, United Kingdom, and Soviet Union decided the fate of territories taken from Nazi Germany. Because it led to Europe’s division into a Soviet sphere and a US-leaning zone, “Yalta” has become synonymous with world leaders carving up the globe.
Now, we hear claims that a new Yalta is unfolding. According to the usual fauna of analysts and columnists, Russia, China, and the United States are supposedly dividing the world among themselves. Cartoonists depict Putin, Xi, and Trump as Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill, each eyeing their prize: Ukraine for Putin, Taiwan for Xi, and Greenland or Panama for Trump.
It makes for entertaining satire—unless you happen to live in one of those territories—but it simply isn’t true.
Assuming Yalta was even about this—which is not entirely true; it was also about shaping the United Nations and discussing what to do to defeat an enemy and deal with the aftermath, none of which applies to the present—the comparison carries a dangerous implication: that the United States is at fault for whatever China will do in Taiwan. This is not true, and this is what China wants you to believe.
The truth is, even if Donald Trump suddenly became the world’s most principled advocate for sovereignty and self-determination, it would not change Xi Jinping’s objectives. Even when the United States behaves in a way that supposedly appeases China, Beijing still tightens its grip. If you believe Trump’s stance on Greenland or Panama has any effect on China’s aggression toward Taiwan, you haven’t been paying attention to what China has been doing for the last decades. And if you believe Trump abandoning such ambitions would make Xi reconsider Taiwan, you are delusional.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsThe point is not to defend or criticise Trump—it is to remind everyone that whoever sits in the White House does not determine China’s actions regarding Taiwan. Suggesting otherwise shifts responsibility away from the actual aggressor. Trump can be blamed for many things, and his moral compass is open to debate, but he does not control the Chinese Communist Party or its military. When Putin and Xi order their armies to march, they bear the sole responsibility for it, and any narrative suggesting they have been forced or encouraged to do so is just an attempt at absolving them.
This trend of forcing historical comparisons is not just misleading—it’s counterproductive. Comparing the Munich Security Conference of 2025 with the Munich Agreement of 1938 is easy and lazy. We need to move beyond the overused warnings of “history repeating itself”, vague allusions to the Third Reich, the buildup to World War I, or yet another call to study the fall of the Roman Empire. Such references might earn applause in one’s echo chamber and make you appear as erudite among your friends, but they do nothing to improve our understanding of today’s unique geopolitical landscape. All the contrary.
This brings us to another major issue: an overemphasis on what world leaders say rather than what they do. This is especially problematic in the case of Donald Trump, who thrives on incendiary rhetoric. Nearly a decade after his entry into politics, one might assume people would recognise his strategy: dominating the narrative by tossing verbal grenades, whether on social media or at press conferences. Yet how often do headlines revolve around his latest outburst? How many well-educated analysts waste ink dissecting why Trump’s latest tirade is “not nice” in pompous academic terms? And more importantly—what difference does it make?
At this point, historical references should be treated as red flags. Instead, examine events with fresh eyes. Focus on what leaders do, not what they say. When you do, the conclusion is clear: Trump’s rhetoric about claiming another territory has no impact on Xi Jinping’s stance on Taiwan. Repeating this trope only helps China in its psychological warfare by giving the impression that the fate of Taiwan is sealed, that the US is not going to defend it (when a closer look indicates an American shift to the Indo-Pacific), that Taiwan and the free world should just give up, and that Washington is no better than Moscow and Beijing: all narratives that China relentlessly pushes forward in order to weaken its targets and foster its aggressions.
Such an intense battle of narratives may never have happened in history before, but it happens now, and while we talk about the past, this is how they attempt to shape the future.
Julien Oeuillet is a Taiwan-based journalist. He works for several English-language media such as Radio Taiwan International and television channel TaiwanPlus. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
