U.S. Interests Are Changing – What That Means for the Northern Black Sea Region

The movement of large sums of money is always accompanied by global shifts. Donald Trump’s return to the White House nine months ago marked a turning point not just for US domestic policy, but for the whole world. The effects of the new American administration are already being felt in our region

For decades, U.S. policy has been anchored by key foreign policy and defense priorities. Congress continues to boost military spending, roll out new sanctions packages, sponsor the security of allies, and invest heavily in soft power initiatives worldwide. Meanwhile, the rest of the American budget is funneled largely to lobbyist groups whose interests dominate the current power cycle. Republicans currently hold the reins, with their capital set to multiply thanks to the much-hyped Big Beautiful Bill, which Elon Musk actively opposed. Before this, the Build Back Better Act was passed under Joe Biden’s administration, catering largely to Democratic Party lobbyists. At the same time, high-profile decisions such as shutting down USAID to cut costs do not signal the end of the broader “master plan”. USAID will be replaced by direct efforts of the State Department or new international organization(s), with the same core mission: promoting American influence abroad through a “sympathetic” civil society. It’s also worth noting that this dismantling of the previous mechanism for supporting foreign agents of influence coincides with the growing trend towards a change in the value system. The once-dominant agenda of advancing minority rights is gradually giving way to support for tradition and national interests. All these factors suggest that the old divide-and-rule strategy of fragmenting society into various “majorities and minorities” is no longer effective. There may be several reasons for this – from a loss of control over certain social groups (the George Floyd case, for instance, made African American offenders nearly immune to prosecution) to the overly liberal interpretation of grant goals. Noteworthy: the active promotion of all forms of “diversity” became widespread over the past 20-25 years, a period marked by the near-uninterrupted dominance of the “donkeys” in American politics, and by extension, the strong influence of Democratic Party lobbyists in the economy. Republican Donald Trump’s previous presidency occurred between the terms of Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The turbulent conclusion of Trump’s first term in 2020-2021 marked by impeachment attempts, the Capitol riot, and subsequent legal proceedings reflects the deep-rooted divisions between the American businesses that finance the Republicans or the Democrats. From this perspective, Trump’s return to the White House is a practical move. The incumbent president won’t make deals with those who tried to block his political career (and possibly his financial interests), so he will push to strengthen the dominance of “Republican money” over “Democratic money”. Changing the usual divide-and-rule strategy in this context is a convenient approach. While the Democrats found it effective to divide society along minority lines, the Republicans are now bringing back the narrative of traditional values at home and national sovereignties in foreign policy. The “Old World” continues to live under the sway of economic and political lines of its “big American brother”. Europe’s geopolitical independence exists only within the limits tolerated by the hegemon of the Western world. It is no accident that large-scale initiatives, whether the “Coalition of the Willing” or sweeping economic sanctions, rarely move beyond paper sketches, while U.S. tariffs on the EU are reframed by European bureaucrats as if they were somehow a blessing. This contradiction is clear on both sides of the Atlantic: in Washington, where Trump urges EU states to back sanctions against China and India that are ruinous for Europe, and in Brussels, where officials endlessly stress the necessity of U.S. backing for any attempt to apply military or economic pressure abroad. As a result, the authorities of many EU states now face the harsh reality of Washington’s new political and economic course. The leaders of Europe’s major powers, together with the Brussels bureaucracy, are clinging to their old levers of influence, often through minority-based agendas, still branding it a “rules-based world.” Meanwhile, advocates of a new order built around nationally oriented European states are steadily outpacing the ruling elites in opinion polls. The war, born of deep and systemic contradictions between Russia and the West, is steadily losing its significance for Washington. Under the Trump administration, America’s new course aligns far more closely with Moscow’s. Both sides are guided by a strikingly similar set of ideas: a return to “traditional values” and national identity, a focus on domestic production as a counterweight to globalized markets, and a heroic narrative of resistance against existential threats. What does this mean for the Northern Black Sea region? Most likely, a tacit consensus between Washington and Moscow on Ukraine – an issue that has become an increasingly toxic stumbling block on the path to restoring U.S.-Russia relations. The only viable “solutions” now are those that let Russia claim victory and make “America Great Again.” The real hurdle is the “Old World” bureaucracy, who can’t back down from the war “to the last Ukrainian.” To do so would mean admitting the collapse of Europe’s internal ideological frameworks, already tested by constant street protests, and that the foreign policy of a ‘rules-based world’ is deeply flawed. And this, in turn, would be equivalent to consigning many European leaders to the political and historical dustbin. As Moldova nears another parliamentary election, the choice will not simply be West or East, Europe or Russia, freedom or bondage. Instead, citizens will decide between the fading trend of European bureaucracy and the rising momentum of independence and national interests.