"Spheres of Influence" over territories is obsolete in a world connected by the internet. We will independently associate through common values.
Also what is this exactly? Are you stroking yourself to some fantasy of Russia seizing control of the world? I suppose Putin would make an excellent Napoleon.
"Common values" - dude, you're so 90s. What values are we talking about? Sponsoring and organizing armed coups, overthrowing governments? Bombing other nations all over the globe? Maybe I don't see an elephant in the room?
Now on "spheres of influence". They are sort of obsolete - you are right perhaps. Their problem in 21st century - they are too expensive to maintain, with too little value. The only country in the world who still sticks to this notion is USA. Russia isn't really into those games - they aren't even going after Ukraine next to them, even though they can do it in a week. Crimea is enough for them. USA though have their reasons to stick to spheres of influence in Eurasia. That continent has 3/4 of world's population and 80% of world economy. In order to be able to run current deficits without much inflation, and maintain their current size of economy, it's crucial that the global trade (not only oil) is done in USD. Hence they are ready for everything in order to maintain this trade in USD, and USD as the world reserve currency. Especially this is true for oil trade. They also tried to include Russia into the sphere of influence in 90s, but in 2000s Russia got out of it. Then we had Kiev in 2014 and many other things - the goal was to get Russia and their neighboring countries into US sphere. Crimea clash has to do with this too.
Now let's look at the trends. Last US tried to get under their umbrella Syria as well. Russian involvement causes USA not only to lose footing in Syria, but also this loss weakens their positions in Middle East. US allies are looking north, Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually say USA thank you and ask to leave. This can be postponed for some time, but I don't see this as avoidable. And that's considerable loss of influence. Without that, American ability to hold Europe gets into question. If the game is lost for the USA, they become a North American regional power at best, and transformation process will be painful and risky to the very statehood of the USA (40-50% contraction of economy isn't a joke).
Here we come to the games of American elite groups. One of these groups sees this development, and prefers to take a break from attempts to hold these positions, negotiate some terms of the break in order to fix things back home to preserve a chance to retry later. Trump represents this group, and this is where the talks of "America first" and "big deal" are from (and my somewhat joking hint to Dutchy about Europe's "transfer"). The second one (led by Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton) elects to bet everything on the table, even risking real nuclear war. They prefer tighter control over other nations' elite, and this is where "common values" talks are from. Representatives of both of these groups are present within each Republicans and Democrats.
This is the story of 21st century. Russia showed today that their positions for negotiating the "big deal" are darn strong, and the "final bet" is very likely to loose, if at all possible to win.