Moscow is getting tetchy as the West zones in on the Arctic for resources and security
But now that the U.S. and NATO are pivoting their focus to the Arctic for geoeconomic and security reasons, Moscow is getting tetchy about the West's newfound interest.
That's perhaps to be expected, given Russia's territorial stake in the region: Russia spans 53% (or over 22,990 miles) of the Arctic Ocean coastline, and out of its population of around 146 million people, 2.5 millions Russians live and work there, according to the Arctic Institute, a center for circumpolar security studies.
For locals — and the wider Russian economy — strategic drivers of jobs, investment and growth include oil, gas and mineral extraction industries, fisheries, and infrastructure and transportation logistics, particularly related to the Northern Sea Route, a major Arctic shipping route for Russia between Europe and Asia.
In addition, Russia maintains its sea-based nuclear deterrent in the Arctic and has a number of military bases and airfields there, as well a specialized fleet of ice breakers to facilitate trade, transportation and resource extraction in the territory.
This is why Russia watches closely when U.S. President Donald Trump says he's going to take over the resource-rich Arctic island of Greenland, or when NATO carries out Arctic war games.
"NATO countries in general are increasingly designating the Far North as a springboard for possible conflicts,' Russian President Vladimir Putin commented as NATO allies conducted war drills in Norway in March that involved 10,000 NATO troops from nine allied nations.
The exercises were designed, NATO said, to hone their skills, military capabilities and cooperation for extreme cold weather warfare.
Putin was not convinced, stating that it "is obvious that the role and importance of the Arctic both for Russia and for the whole world is growing. But, unfortunately, geopolitical competition, the struggle for positions in this region, is also intensifying."
Shortly after NATO's exercises, Russia's Northern Fleet (tasked with defending the Arctic seas along Northern Russia, including the Barents Sea and Kara Sea) begun exercises in the Arctic involving 20 ships and around 1,500 personnel, Russian news agency Interfax reported.
CNBC has contacted the Kremlin for further comment and is awaiting a response.
Russia is looking to aggressively expand its economic interests in the Arctic, with the region contributing significant value to the economy.
"Today, the Arctic already produces 7.5% of Russia's gross domestic product and more than 11% of its exports," Alexey Chekunkov, minister for the Development of the Russian Far East and Arctic, said last week in comments reported by newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta, and translated by Google.
Russia was "implementing global-scale investment projects in the Arctic and developing the world's largest network of Arctic cities," he added.
"As the projects that have already begun are implemented, the importance of the Arctic in Russia's economy, logistics, and security will only increase," Chekunkov said, noting that "it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the Northern Sea Route, which provides a 40% shorter route between Europe and Asia."
International sanctions designed to degrade Russia's oil and gas sector following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 have affected some big projects in the region, with liquefied natural gas (LNG) output from the Arctic LNG 2 project and a mega oil project planned by Vostok Oil among the major infrastructure projects hit by Western sanctions.
Russia has looked to evade sanctions by using a so-called "shadow fleet" of vessels and tankers to export its oil and gas supplies to customers still willing to buy them, with Ukraine's Western allies playing catch-up to try to close loopholes that have allowed Moscow to do this.
Marie-Anne Coninsx, former EU ambassador for the Arctic, told CNBC Wednesday that the Arctic was "of crucial strategic interest for Russia, economically and [in terms of] security. It's an enormous source of GDP because of the extraction of energy resources, and the use of the Northern Sea Route is an enormous income for Russia. And with this income, and despite the sanctions, Russia has been able to finance one third of the cost of the war in Ukraine with these exports," she told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe."
"The sanctions are having an effect but should go further, because it it is touching the the Russian economy, but there is the other aspect of security, because Russians known its nuclear powers are in the Arctic, and this is a serious threat for Europe," she said.
One of the problems for Europe and NATO's Arctic strategy is that it is only playing catch-up when compared to Russia's long-standing development of its Arctic territory.
Russia began reinvesting in Arctic affairs in the mid-2000s, said analysts at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), adding that "the Kremlin remains adamant in asserting complete control over the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation," as it looks to protect perceived vital interests along the Northern Sea Route.
In contrast, the West's renewed interest in the Arctic has been largely spurred by Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
"Until [that], I would say there was no real NATO awareness of the security threat in the Arctic, it was neglecting its northern flank," former EU ambassador to the Arctic Coninsx told CNBC.
"But due to the invasion of Russia in Ukraine, and particularly thanks to the new membership [in the alliance] of Sweden and Finland, there is a strengthening security force from NATO in northern Europe ... And for the European Union, it has become more important for geo-economic and geopolitical security reasons."
The Arctic "is becoming the center of world attention" also for "geoeconomic reasons" — including the fact that climate change meant the wealth of natural resources and critical minerals in the Arctic were now more accessible, and there are more shipping opportunities along the Northern Sea Route.
"Therefore there is an increased interest also for major geopolitical players, not only of the U.S., but also from non-Arctic states, major ones like China," she said.
U.S. interest in the Arctic has also been renewed by the Trump administration, with the president vowing to take over Greenland, potentially with military force. That did not go down well in either Greenland, Denmark or Europe, with widespread condemnation of the president's posture on the matter.
Interestingly, Russia seemed to take a more sanguine position on Trump's interest, saying it was watching developments closely.
Eyeing an opportunity to leverage its own experience in the "Far North" around the Arctic Circle, and perhaps to ingratiate itself with Trump, Bloomberg reported in February that Moscow was interested in developing joint projects with the U.S. around natural resource extraction and transportation in the Arctic.
CNBC has asked the Kremlin and White House for further comment on the report and is awaiting a response.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Lucid Motors Stock a Buy, Sell, or Hold for July 2025?
The recent discussion about electric vehicles (EVs) centers on industry leader Tesla (TSLA) and how new policies might slow down demand for EVs. President Donald Trump's bill would cut the $7,500 EV tax credit for the purchase of a new EV as well as the $4,000 credit for buying a used EV after September. Against this backdrop, can luxury EV maker Lucid Group (LCID) take the spotlight away from some of the big names? More News from Barchart Warren Buffett Warns Inflation Turns Business Into 'The Upside-Down World of Alice in Wonderland' But Weeds Out 'Bad Businesses' Why GOOGL Stock May Be the Market's Next Big Winner Alphabet Posts Lower Free Cash Flow and FCF Margins - Is GOOGL Stock Overvalued? Our exclusive Barchart Brief newsletter is your FREE midday guide to what's moving stocks, sectors, and investor sentiment - delivered right when you need the info most. Subscribe today! About Lucid Stock Founded in 2007, Lucid Motors, officially known as Lucid Group, operates as a U.S. luxury EV and technology company. It began its operations by supplying high-performance batteries and powertrain systems but changed its position in 2016 to produce its own EVs. Lucid has a market capitalization of $8.9 billion. The company's flagship product, the Lucid Air, was launched in 2021. The EV is popular among consumers for its rapid charging capabilities, long range, and upscale interior design. In late 2024, Lucid started producing its second model, the Gravity SUV. The model combines luxury with long mileage. Lucid is backed by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF), which remains its majority investor. Lucid is also looking at a potential reverse stock split. The company has filed a preliminary proxy statement for a 1-for-10 reverse stock split. While the strategy is popular among firms trying to avoid a delisting by preventing the stock price from falling below the $1 mark, Lucid does not seem to be in danger of delisting. Lucid recently secured a partnership with ride-hailing giant Uber Technologies (UBER), whereby Uber is set to invest $300 million in Lucid. Uber will also invest in autonomous technology startup Nuro, which is set to equip Lucid vehicles with self-driving capabilities. Uber aims to deploy approximately 20,000 Lucid vehicles equipped with Nuro Driver over a six-year period. Lucid investors celebrated this multi-year deal, which led to LCID stock surging. Over the past month alone, Lucid shares have gained 36%. However, over the past 52 weeks, the stock is still down by nearly 16%. LCID currently trades 34% lower than its 52-week high of $4.43. Currently, Lucid trades at an eye-watering valuation. Its price-to-sales ratio sits at 11 times, which is significantly higher compared to the industry average. Lucid's Q1 Results Were Lower Than Expected On May 6, Lucid reported its first-quarter results for 2025. During the quarter, revenue climbed 36% from the prior-year period to $235.05 million. At the heart of this growth was Lucid delivering 3,109 vehicles in Q1, representing a 58.1% year-over-year (YOY) increase. The company produced 2,212 vehicles during the quarter, which excludes over 600 vehicles in transit to Saudi Arabia for factory gating. While production and deliveries are growing, so are costs. The company continues to post significant losses. In Q1, its net loss per share stood at $0.24. While this was lower than the $0.30 per share net loss in Q1 2024, it was wider than the $0.23 per share net loss that analysts had expected. Lucid ended the quarter with about $5.76 billion in total liquidity. Lucid is still aiming for a huge expansion in deliveries. At the current rate, it's on track to deliver 12,500 vehicles, which is robustly higher than the number it delivered last year. Even with the fear of tariffs looming large, the company aims to produce approximately 20,000 vehicles this year, which is roughly double what it produced in 2024. While analysts expect Lucid to continue posting losses, they anticipate that these losses will narrow. In Q2, Lucid is projected to post a loss per share of $0.22, narrowing by 24% YOY. For the current year, the company's loss per share is expected to be $0.89, reflecting an improvement of 29% YOY. What Do Analysts Think About Lucid Stock? Wall Street analysts are tepid on LCID stock at the moment. Analysts at Cantor Fitzgerald reiterated their 'Neutral' rating on LCID with a $3 price target. This was predicated upon Lucid's Q2 production and delivery numbers falling short of Cantor Fitzgerald's estimates while showing improvements YOY. On the other hand, Baird analyst Ben Kallo raised the price target on Lucid Group from $2 to $3 while maintaining a 'Neutral' rating. The price target was upgraded after Lucid reaffirmed its intention to launch its midsize platform next year, indicating potential models. Morgan Stanley also sees opportunity in Lucid's partnership with Uber. Analysts at the firm reiterated their 'Equal Weight' rating and $3 price target on the stock. Wall Street analysts have a mixed view about Lucid, giving it a consensus 'Hold' rating overall. Of the 13 analysts rating the stock, two analysts rate it a 'Strong Buy,' a majority of nine analysts play it safe with a 'Hold' rating, one analyst provides a 'Moderate Sell' rating, and one analyst recommends 'Strong Sell.' The consensus price target of $2.86 represents 2% downside potential from current levels. Key Takeaways While the multi-year partnership with Uber creates a chance of generating a revenue stream for the foreseeable future, the effects of the absence of tax credits on this luxury EV maker and a reverse stock split must also be taken into account. Hence, it might be wise to observe LCID stock from the sidelines for now. On the date of publication, Anushka Dutta did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Kohl's Stock a Buy, Sell, or Hold in July 2025?
Kohl's (KSS) is in the thick of a strategic identity crisis, and its recent stock surge only throws the tension into sharper relief. Over the past three years, shares of the department store chain have dropped 56%. Zoom into the last 52 weeks, and it's a 36% downslide. The company's market share has steadily slipped under pressure from both brick-and-mortar rivals and e-commerce juggernauts. Internal dysfunction has only deepened the trouble. In early May, Kohl's abruptly ousted CEO Ashley Buchanan following an internal investigation, raising serious questions about leadership stability. More News from Barchart Warren Buffett Warns Inflation Turns Business Into 'The Upside-Down World of Alice in Wonderland' But Weeds Out 'Bad Businesses' Why GOOGL Stock May Be the Market's Next Big Winner Alphabet Posts Lower Free Cash Flow and FCF Margins - Is GOOGL Stock Overvalued? Stop Missing Market Moves: Get the FREE Barchart Brief – your midday dose of stock movers, trending sectors, and actionable trade ideas, delivered right to your inbox. Sign Up Now! Meanwhile, President Donald Trump's tariffs on imports have forced the company to overhaul its supply chain and rethink inventory management just to stay operationally afloat. Then came July 22. In an almost surreal twist, KSS shares skyrocketed nearly 38% on no formal news, no bullish analyst calls, no revised guidance — nothing at all except pure retail frenzy. Trading volumes surged 17 times above average, mirroring the chaotic price moves of past meme stock episodes. The fundamentals did not change overnight. But the sentiment did. And that says a lot about the environment Kohl's now operates in. About Kohl's Stock Based in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, Kohl's operates nearly 1,100 retail stores across the United States and manages a nationwide e-commerce platform through its website. With a market capitalization of $1.43 billion, the company offers a broad product range spanning apparel, home goods, footwear, accessories, and beauty. Its proprietary portfolio includes Apt. 9, Croft & Barrow, Sonoma Goods for Life, and Tek Gear, among others, alongside exclusive brand partnerships such as LC Lauren Conrad and Simply Vera Vera Wang. Despite this breadth, KSS stock has been under sustained pressure until a recent surge reversed its course. Over the past month, KSS has rallied 58%, with a 33% gain occurring in just the last five trading days. The speed and scale of the move suggest speculative momentum, not fundamental recovery. KSS stock now trades at 37 times forward earnings, a valuation significantly above its five-year average and well beyond sector norms. For a retailer facing declining sales and a dividend cut to $0.125 per share, that multiple appears disconnected from its underlying financial health. Kohl's Surpasses Q1 Earnings On May 29, Kohl's unveiled its fiscal first-quarter 2025 results, numbers that, while still reflecting a business under strain, managed to beat the Street's muted expectations. Total revenue for the quarter stood at $3.23 billion, down 4.4% year-over-year (YOY) yet slightly ahead of analyst projections of $3.18 billion. Comparable sales slipped 3.9%, weighed down by continued weakness in discretionary categories and lackluster digital traffic. Other revenues declined 9.8% to $184 million. Even so, Kohl's delivered an operating income of $60 million, up 39% from the same period last year. Operating margin improved by 58 basis points to 1.9%, offering a glimpse of tighter cost controls despite sales pressure. Net loss narrowed 44% YOY to $15 million. EPS surprised to the upside, rising 45.8% from the year-ago value to a $0.13 loss versus the consensus estimate of a $0.22 loss. The unexpected beat helped soothe market nerves, although only briefly. As of quarter-end, Kohl's held $153 million in cash and cash equivalents, and total shareholders' equity stood at $3.8 billion. Net cash used in operations reached $92 million, mostly due to seasonal inventory buildup. Looking ahead, Kohl's is bracing for more turbulence. Full-year net sales are expected to decline between 5% and 7%, while comparable sales are projected to fall 4% to 6%. Operating margin is forecast to range between 2.2% and 2.6%, with management guiding for full-year EPS between $0.10 and $0.60. Analyst sentiment mirrors that caution. Q2 EPS is projected to decline 44% YOY to $0.33. For the full fiscal year, the bottom line is expected to plunge 75% to $0.37. Even in fiscal 2026, the Street sees little recovery, forecasting another 8% drop in EPS to $0.34. What Do Analysts Expect for Kohl's Stock? The recent rally in Kohl's stock may have turned heads on trading desks, but Wall Street remains firmly unconvinced. The Street-wide consensus is a 'Moderate Sell,' shaped by structural concerns that continue to cloud the company's trajectory. Out of 12 analysts covering KSS stock, six issue a 'Hold" rating, one suggests a 'Moderate Sell,' and five recommend a 'Strong Sell" rating. Goldman Sachs recently raised its price target from $5 to $7 but kept its 'Sell' rating unchanged. The average price target stands at $7.35. That's well below where KSS stock currently trades. Even the Street-high target, set at $11, doesn't reflect the levels the stock has touched during its meme-fueled spike. It might be safe to say that Kohl's is leaning more toward uncertainty than a true rebound. On the date of publication, Aanchal Sugandh did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Sign in to access your portfolio
Atlantic
21 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Death of Democracy Promotion
On April 29, 1999, precision-guided NATO bombs tore through the brick facades of two defense-ministry buildings in Belgrade, the capital of the rump state of Yugoslavia. The targets were chosen more for symbolic reasons than operational ones: The American-led coalition wanted to send the country's authoritarian government, at that time engaged in a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, a clear message that human rights weren't just words. They were backed by weapons. For decades, the ruins of the buildings, on either side of a major artery through central Belgrade, were left largely untouched. Tangled concrete and twisted rebar stuck out of pancaked floors. Serbian architects fought to preserve the destroyed buildings; the government has treated them as a war memorial. At the time of the 1999 NATO bombings, Aleksandar Vučić, Serbia's minister of information, was tasked with denouncing the West and backing his country's despot, Slobodan Milošević. Today, Vučić has risen in the ranks to become Serbia's president—an apologist for Russia who attacks the press, has been accused of nurturing close ties to organized crime, and is rapidly dragging his country toward authoritarianism. Vučić is not Milošević—he has not led his country into genocidal wars or faced judgment for war crimes at The Hague—but until recently, he might have expected that his authoritarian style would make relations with Washington rocky. That time is past. Instead of harshly condemning Serbia's abuses, America's president, Donald Trump, will build a Trump Tower Belgrade on top of the defense buildings' ruins. 'Belgrade welcomes a Global Icon,' the slick website for Trump Belgrade proclaims. 'TRUMP. Unrivaled Luxury.' The contract for the project has been signed with Affinity Partners, Jared Kushner's investment firm, which is largely funded with billions of dollars in cash from Saudi Arabia. This story is the material expression of the second Trump administration's turn against a long-standing tradition of Western democracy promotion—and of an embrace of conflicts of interest from which the world's despots can only take inspiration. The authoritarians who govern small countries such as Serbia no longer need to fear the condemnation, much less the bombs, of the American president when they crack down on their opponents, enrich themselves, or tighten their grip on power. On the contrary—the American flirtation with similar practices emboldens them. With Trump's unapologetic foreign policy in his second term, American democracy promotion is effectively dead. Prior to the Soviet Union's collapse, Western diplomats cared far more about whether a dictator was an ally or adversary to the Soviets than about the quality of a country's elections or its respect for human rights. If diplomats from Washington or London pushed too hard for democracy, there was a credible risk that a Western ally could defect and become a friend to Moscow. Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the world's despots no longer had so much cover; Western diplomats could now push harder. New norms developed, which led to a rapid surge in the number of competitive, multiparty elections. Human rights were no longer just an aspirational buzzword. Some countries lost foreign aid or were shunned by the international community if their government committed atrocities. This pressure to adopt democracy and protect human rights was never applied equally. Powerful countries, such as a rising China, became largely immune to Western cajoling. And strategically important countries, such as Saudi Arabia, in many cases got a free pass, facing little more than rhetorical condemnation while presidents and prime ministers continued to shake hands and ink major arms deals. Meanwhile, in smaller countries, such as Togo, Madagascar, or the former Yugoslavia, the post–Cold War push for democracy and human rights often came not just with lip service, but also with teeth. After all, the White House could afford to lose the goodwill of Madagascar in a dispute over values; its geopolitical priorities would suffer little downside. Moreover, weak countries such as Madagascar depended on foreign aid, such that Western governments wielded far more leverage in them than they did in larger, more self-sufficient countries. For a while, then, small-time despots faced a credible threat: Go too far, rights defenders could hope to warn strongmen, and a Western ambassador could soon be knocking on the palace door. None of this is to say that Western powers were always on the side of the angels. During the Cold War, Western governments made lofty speeches about democracy and human rights while funding coups and arming politically convenient rebels. The CIA played a role in overthrowing popularly legitimate governments, such as those of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Salvador Allende in Chile. Even after the Cold War, Western governments have cozied up to plenty of friendly dictatorships, in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea. And yet, particularly in the last 30 years, Western pressure and foreign aid have been significant forces for global democratization. Dictators and despots knew that the world was paying attention, which gave them pause before they turned their guns on their own people. Foreign aid became tied to the verdicts of election monitors, which drastically expanded operations after the end of the Cold War. With funding from the United States and other Western governments, opposition parties, journalists, and civil-society organizations received training on how to bolster democracy. And when political transitions toward democracy took place, as in Tunisia after the Arab Spring, billions of dollars in support flowed in. Partly because of these shifting international norms, the expansion of political freedom was so abrupt after the end of the Cold War that many believed democracy, having won the ideological battle against rival models of governance such as fascism and communism, had become an inexorable force. But the democracy boom under Bill Clinton gave way to failed wars under George W. Bush and inaction under Barack Obama. Bush, who justified wars in Afghanistan and Iraq partly under the guise of a democracy-and-freedom agenda, inadvertently discredited the notion of values-based 'nation building.' A widespread perception among American adversaries took root that democracy promotion was just a code word for 'regime change carried out by American troops.' This gave dictators political cover to boot out international NGOs hoping to bolster democracy and human rights, branding them as mere precursors for a heavy-handed invasion. Obama, picking up the pieces of that failed foreign policy, downplayed the grand vision of a more democratic world as a guiding principle of American diplomacy, even as countries across the globe began to pivot toward authoritarian rule. Now the world is steadily becoming less democratic. According to data from Freedom House, the world has become more authoritarian every year since 2006. Trump's second term may provide the most potent autocratic accelerant yet. In his first term, Trump routinely praised dictators, including in a memorable moment when he boasted about exchanging 'beautiful letters' with North Korea's tyrant. President Joe Biden, with his much-touted Summit for Democracy, tried to recenter democracy as a core principle of the State Department, but that effort was overtaken by successive geopolitical emergencies in Ukraine and Gaza. Now, with his return to power, Trump has gone further than before to fully uproot democracy promotion from American foreign policy. The list of dismantled initiatives is long. In the first months of the second Trump administration, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency not only slashed America's foreign-aid machinery, effectively destroying USAID, but also targeted the National Endowment for Democracy: a bipartisan grant-making organization established under Ronald Reagan to strengthen democratic values abroad. The Trump administration has effectively kneecapped Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, outlets that have aimed to provide news and information to those living under oppressive regimes. Once viewed as bulwarks against authoritarian censorship, these platforms are now overseen by Trump acolyte Kari Lake. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently announced an overhaul of the State Department that effectively eliminates programs that work toward peace building and democracy. As an extra gift to the world's despots, on July 16, Rubio signaled that America will no longer stand in the way of election rigging: Washington will condemn autocrats who use sham election-style events to stay in power only if a major American foreign-policy interest is at stake, the secretary made clear, and from now on, American comments on foreign elections will be 'brief, focused on congratulating the winning candidate and, when appropriate, noting shared foreign policy interests.' The world's worst dictators can rest assured that the next American diplomat to come knocking on their palace doors is more likely to be looking for property rights than human rights. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, which always have had a free pass, might not notice the difference. But brutal regimes in less-noticed parts of the world have now gotten the memo that the Trump White House is indifferent to democracy and human rights, and they are acting accordingly. Cambodia has cracked down on journalists while courting American military officials. Tanzania's leader recently arrested his main rival and charged him with treason. Indonesia's president has begun changing laws, militarizing the country, and undermining the principle of civilian rule. Nigeria's president made a power grab that critics say was blatantly illegal. And El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, who had faced international criticisms for egregious human-rights abuses, isn't just absolved from American pressure—he's become a much-celebrated friend of the White House, lauded because of his gulags. Already, in regions such as Southeast Asia, brave pro-democracy reformers find themselves newly vulnerable and isolated. In Myanmar, pro-democracy forces fighting the country's military dictatorship long benefitted from American aid. The DOGE cuts put an end to that—and gave the repressive junta an enormous boost. In Thailand, a human-rights organization that once sheltered dissidents fleeing Cambodia and Laos has been forced to close its safehouses, allowing those regimes to more easily hunt down and even kill their opponents. These funding streams had accounted for a tiny proportion of the U.S. government's budget, but their elimination sends a strong signal to the world's autocrats: that virtually no one will now interfere with their designs. Admittedly, the United States is less powerful than it once was, and other countries have always had their own domestic agendas, regardless of what Washington has said or done. But that a growing number of the world's despots no longer have to weigh economic costs or diplomatic consequences for crushing their opponents has already made a difference. Thomas Carothers and Oliver Stuenkel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace highlighted the fact that shortly after Musk referred to USAID as a 'criminal organization,' autocrats in Hungary, Serbia, and Slovakia began targeting pro-democracy NGOs that had received money from the agency. President Reagan once celebrated the United States as a 'shining city on a hill,' a 'beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.' That is apparently no longer the aspiration of the American government, which now sends its foreign pilgrims to a dehumanizing prison in El Salvador, arrests judges, and suggests that following the country's Constitution may be optional. For democracy to flourish, citizens must yearn for it—and demand it of their governments. At the moment, few can be looking with admiration to the United States as a model. Already in 2024, according to a 34-country survey conducted by Pew Research, the most common perception of American democracy was that the United States 'used to be a good example, but has not been in recent years.' The first months of the second Trump administration can hardly have improved that impression. Nonetheless, democracy—which provides citizens with a meaningful say over how their lives are governed—still has mass appeal across the globe. Brave, principled activists continue to stand up to despots, even though they do so at much greater peril today than even just a few months ago. In Serbia, for example, pro-democracy, anti-corruption protests have persisted for months. Students and workers are demanding immediate reforms and calling on Vučić to resign. In years past, precisely this kind of movement would have provoked White House press releases, diplomatic visits, and barbed statements from the Oval Office. In April, at long last, came a high-profile visit to Serbia from someone closely linked to the Trump administration. But instead of offering support for the pro-democracy demonstrators, this American emissary condemned the protests and implied that they were the sinister work of American left-wingers and USAID. That visitor was none other than Donald Trump Jr., who had arrived in Belgrade to fawn over Vučić in an exclusive interview for his Triggered with Don Jr. podcast, in the months before the newest Trump Tower opens for presales.
