THE SEEDS AND FRUITS OF WESTERN "SOFT POWER"

One of the first measures U.S. President Donald Trump took to cut American budget spending on foreign policy initiatives directly impacted the well-known USAID (United States Agency for International Development—not "aid" in the literal sense). However, only a naïve observer would believe this was the only agency, foundation, or institute that had long served as a "glove" for Washington’s covert operations disguised as democratic movements. Listing all these entities and their operations worldwide would require significant time and space.

The latest news revolves around protests and complaints from employees at Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, and similar outlets. Under the guise of public diplomacy and the promotion of democracy, all U.S. administrations—Republican and Democratic alike—have projected so-called soft power, shaping political systems and cultivating leadership (to use their own term) that aligns with the Atlanticist agenda and Western ideological hegemony. In simple terms, this was the dissemination of American (pro-Western) propaganda. Where the velvet glove was ineffective, military intervention followed.

Now that, allegedly, a different political wind is blowing, discussions have emerged about matters that were previously whispered about or could not be proven. For example, a Greek politician recently testified that the IMF trained Greek journalists on how to report on the financial crisis that shook the country in 2015, during the left-wing Syriza government. Several former State Department officials have spoken in podcasts about Macedonia’s "Colorful Revolution," whose goal was to overthrow the so-called "regime" (Washington’s usual term for any government it disapproves of) and push Macedonia into NATO through the signing of the Prespa Agreement. It is an open secret that hundreds of millions of dollars were funneled into both Macedonia and Greece, particularly in the media sector, to prepare public opinion and "sell the story" (to quote Macedonia’s former foreign minister, Ljubomir Frčkoski).

But let’s be realistic: this was not solely an American operation. Numerous contractors from the United Kingdom were involved (recall Stratagem International, hired by Zaev’s government to build a favorable public stance before the September 2018 referendum?), as well as various European foundations and intelligence services. Naturally, obtaining public records on such operations is nearly impossible. The preparation of the ground involved spreading confusion among those who applied common sense or legal reasoning. The second step was to demonize anyone opposing the Western "remedy," branding them as nationalists, reactionary elements, or even agents of Russia or other non-Western powers. When such treatment was applied to prominent figures, it served as a warning to the rest: if a professor, artist, or doctor could be treated this way, what could happen to an ordinary person? It was a nearly simultaneous (metaphorically speaking, schizophrenic) messaging strategy: "The people have risen in (a color) revolution, but anyone opposing it or the externally imposed government is not part of the people and has no right to protest." Orwellian doublethink—accepting two contradictory ideas at once—ultimately led to societal paralysis, apathy, and distrust.

The general impression is that Trump is abandoning previous methods of "speaking softly" and acting through "gloves." Instead, he is wielding a big stick—tariffs, sanctions, and even threats of territorial annexation. His personal style, as well as that of his closest associates (such as Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Rubio, and Defense Secretary Hegseth), might suggest a shift in the hegemonic paradigm from benevolent global benefactor to unapologetic self-interest. Trump’s America has simply removed its mask and revealed its essence: a selfish giant placing its national (oligarchic) interests above all else. However, given Trump's unpredictable nature and at times bizarre peace proposals (such as his idea of a Gaza Riviera), it remains to be seen what will happen next. Yet, American foreign policy has a constant—it does not change easily or quickly. It operates in continuity, regardless of seemingly different methods. The reason for this is simple: the "fields" have been plowed, sown, and harvested for decades. What was planted can still sprout—some sooner, some later.

For decades, Americanization was equated with modernization, progress, and freedom. Generations grew up on Hollywood movies, Coca-Cola, comic books, McBurgers, and other products of mass (consumerist) culture. But let’s assume, for a moment, that all of this is coming to an end because Trump pursues a different (though not necessarily more peaceful) policy. What are the results of the seeds of Americanization left behind—beyond the ashes of destroyed states, societies, and communities? A glance at history reveals that USAID, NED, Voice of America, and Radio Free Europe are all relics of the (first) Cold War era. After the fall of socialism in 1989, they only gained momentum, expanding into new territories that had previously been behind the "Iron Curtain."

In the former Yugoslavia, things moved at a slower pace, with a focus on post-conflict reconciliation. But the core objective remained: imposing a neoliberal order at any cost and introducing Western capital under the guise of investment. Academic research on "liberal" or "corporate" peace demonstrates that war-torn societies, still struggling to recover, were unable to protect their natural and economic resources, which were handed over to Western corporations. Across the region, a climate emerged in which foreign investments were equated with stability and progress, while political reforms and narratives sought to reinforce the idea that "There Is No Alternative" (except the Western one). However, reality shows that none of these continuous "reforms" imposed by Western state-builders achieved their proclaimed goals. The situation is dire, as stabilitocracy (supporting leaders loyal to the West, even if corrupt or incompetent) comes at a high cost for local populations. Western-backed kakistocracy created economic colonies rather than societies capable of defining their own interests, as opposed to those of their neocolonizers.

As security conditions deteriorate in Europe and beyond, the countries of our region, including Macedonia, have become integrated into the military-industrial-media-academic complex. Every element is aligned—there is no room for dissenting opinions, and the profits (economic or geopolitical) flow westward. When things go wrong, "the locals" are to blame—never the West.

Ultimately, it can be concluded that there was never anything truly "soft" about Western power, even when it employed soft methods and bottom-up influence. But now, a shift appears to be underway, as the Euro-Atlantic bond teeters on the brink of divorce—chaotic, intolerant, and filled with low blows and clashes of interests and egos. Trump has halted funding for soft power-driven social transformations, particularly in countries of little interest to him. But does that mean the influence of the Democrats (and their already planted seeds across the Balkans) is a closed chapter?

Let’s not be fooled: there are still European sponsors who call for power projection and keeping the neighborhood loyal. But they are grappling with a key question: How much of their vast military budget (Ursula von der Leyen’s €800 billion for EU rearmament) are they willing to allocate for power projection in their neglected (rather, pro-US) periphery? It’s the very periphery they have long treated with disdain—looking down on their poor and "uncivilized" relatives…