|
2025-02-08 Government Corruption
|
|
Trump Takes on 'Soft Power.' Why USAID Reform Is Dangerous for Russia
|
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Ivan Lizan
[REGNUM] Effective February 7, all U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) employees, except those responsible for critical programs, have been placed on administrative leave.
The agency itself has already been subordinated to the State Department, turning it into a structural division, and the new functionality of the main American instrument of soft power remains unclear.
The suspension of USAID's activities could not help but cause jubilation in Russia: it is pleasant to observe the turmoil in the enemy camp and the suffering of compatriots who have signed up as foreign agents.
But there are a few hefty flies in the ointment.
DON'T CONFUSE REASON AND CAUSE
The media coverage surrounding the suspension of USAID activities fits into several narratives promoted by Republican LOMs.
First, USAID is an organization that spent American taxpayer money on things that Trump and his allies believe did not make America great.
Examples include:
support for the LGBT movement in different countries of the world (transgender opera in Colombia, transgender comics in Peru, LGBT activism in Guatemala);
purchasing contraceptives for residents of the Gaza Strip and food rations for Al-Qaeda (a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation);
buying the loyalty of the American media ($8 million to Politico for positive articles about Democrats);
unreasonable spending ($6 million on tourism in Egypt, $2.5 million on electric cars for Vietnam).
From the Republicans' point of view, these expenses are indeed harmful, since they do not strengthen the Republicans' positions. Democrats would argue with them. In their view, LGBT* are a privileged minority until recently, supporting Democrats, contraceptives curb the already rapid birth rate in Gaza, reducing the number of Israel's enemies, and buying media loyalty is a normal story for all countries in the world.
Secondly, USAID is positioned as an ineffective structure with low efficiency. In this case, Trump's opponents would also have something to say in their defense. The key question is what is considered efficiency. If we take as a criterion the growth of approval of non-traditional sexual values in a separate Latin American country or the increase in the rejection of the construction of large industrial enterprises due to the threat to the environment, then there will indeed be questions about efficiency. But in this case, it is important not to confuse declared and actual activities.
USAID clerks don't care whether Guatemala has become more gay-friendly*. The gay community is purely a tool for achieving certain goals, just like peaceful environmentalists who, on command, turn into militants and screamers to disrupt an unwanted construction project.
Useless at first glance, NGOs are an incubator for selecting and growing LOMs, some of whom will later become politicians. And the so-called "Committee of Voters of Ukraine" receives funding in vain during the inter-election period, but during the election period, parallel vote counting becomes a powerful instrument of delegitimization and control of power.
Thirdly, the agency was an obvious "feeding trough" for the Democrats. It was the Democrats who most actively financed USAID: Trump allocated a little more than $25 billion to the agency during his first term, while Obama and Biden each allocated about $50 billion. Therefore, the fight against USAID, as well as against the federal Department of Education, fits into the logic of dismantling the legacy of predecessors who, as expected, were incompetent and thieving.
And such a struggle also allows one to actively promote oneself and raise ratings among one’s own voters.
Therefore, if we abstract from the ideological coloring of USAID’s activities and consider it as a government structure, then the agency was disbanded because the Republicans do not need it in its current form and it is run by people who are disloyal to Trump – representatives of that very “deep state.”
Financial efficiency is secondary: over 10 years, the US spent $335 billion on USAID, which is comparable to its annual trade deficit with China.
Simply put, in the USAID topic it is important not to confuse the reason for the closure with the real reason.
CONSEQUENCES FOR RUSSIA
Of course, it is nice when the newly elected US president suspends the main instrument of soft power, whose activities have caused serious damage to Russia in the post-Soviet space. But these are emotions. It is important not to indulge in complacency.
The fact that Trump and Musk have dispersed USAID speaks volumes. Republicans operate in the logic of taking extraordinary actions and are ready to destroy entire institutions of power to achieve their goals. Consequently, they are even more dangerous than Democrats and Biden-Harris, who used these very institutions.
An unpredictable enemy is more dangerous than a predictable one.
Trumpists are not afraid to bring painful questions about the effectiveness of state institutions to the public arena; this does not require a real state of emergency. Therefore, the USAID case is an alarm bell for Russia: the enemy is ready to change and is trying to become more effective.
A separate issue is the actual efficiency of the work of the “soft power” institutions in the USA and Russia. You can reproach USAID for senseless funding of LGBT* productions or rejoice at how much money the clerks in Washington saw off. The end result is important.
In the case of Ukraine, it is obvious: the very need to conduct SVO testifies to the effectiveness of American "soft power". As it became known, USAID financed 90% of Ukrainian media of various calibers, from regional online publications to projects of national significance. Many of them specialized in anti-corruption investigations and worked exclusively as an element of foreign influence on local elites.
Thanks to this, publications like Hromadske and Espresso appeared in Ukraine on the eve of Euromaidan, and then the anti-corruption projects Skhemi and Groshi (Schemes and Money). The employees of the latter allowed themselves to criticize the activities of local elites and publish investigations into the ways they earn money. Thanks to these investigations, Russia had a better understanding of who and what they were in Ukraine.
Now these projects are on hold. Some of their employees, who did not manage to annoy the authorities, will be taken on by the Zelensky regime, but they will not engage in any anti-corruption activities with his money. Consequently, a large layer of information will disappear from the public sphere, and our understanding of Ukrainian politics risks being reduced to the understanding that it resembles a swamp with devils, but without details and bright colors.
USAID WILL RETURN
The main thing to understand about the suspension of USAID activities is that it is temporary.
No one will close such a structure forever: it employs a fair number of technocrats who will serve Trump well, provided that the staff is renewed, the leadership and ideological orientation are changed. Therefore, USAID will most likely be reformed: the agency will lose its autonomy for better management and will change its ideological framework from liberal globalism to right-wing conservatism.
And, what is most dangerous for Russia, USAID may be digitalized, increasing the efficiency of budget spending. It is possible that the activities of the updated agency will be limited to the regions that are of the highest priority for the United States, sacrificing, for example, the Gaza Strip.
In general, there is a high probability that USAID will return.
It's one thing when American taxpayers' money is used to finance agenda-driven performances and LGBT* festivals, and an openly gay/transgender* person talks about American values. It's a completely different matter when the State Department's money is used to make conservative films with stern rednecks and beautiful blondes with third-size breasts, who will once again become the embodiment of the American dream. By the way, there are people who can make such films: it's enough to study the serial legacy of Taylor Sheridan, which is breaking records for views on streaming services. Such America is much more dangerous for Russia.
And it is not a fact that even if the Democrats return to power in the US in two years in the midterm elections, Trump’s USAID reform will be cancelled: if it turns out to be effective, such an agency could harm us for decades.
Therefore, the USAID case should be a lesson for us: it is important to improve the efficiency of public administration and master the technologies of non-military influence, then no enemy reforms will be scary.
|
Posted by badanov 2025-02-08 00:00||
||
Front Page|| [11141 views ]
Top
|
|
17:36 swksvolFF
17:34 Procopius2k
17:28 Lord Garth
16:23 mossomo
16:19 mossomo
16:09 mossomo
16:08 Regular joe
16:02 Regular joe
15:58 Regular joe
15:38 mossomo
15:30 mossomo
15:28 Grom the Affective
15:11 Procopius2k
15:08 Procopius2k
15:01 Pancho Poodle8452
13:54 Mercutio
13:45 swksvolFF
13:19 Abu Uluque
13:18 Remoteman
13:14 DarthVader
13:11 Pancho Poodle8452
13:05 Grom the Affective
13:02 Besoeker
13:01 Abu Uluque
|
