The "Soft Power" Agency

Many remember USAID’s highly successful humanitarian projects, such as PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief). Launched in 2003 under the administration of President George W. Bush, this initiative saw USAID supplying African and Asian countries with antiretroviral drugs and developing medical infrastructure for testing and treating millions of people. The program was extensively covered by The New York Times, highlighting how it contributed to a decline in HIV/AIDS mortality rates in several regions. The organization also played a key role in setting up mobile clinics, particularly in remote areas where access to diagnosis and treatment was previously nonexistent.

USAID is also widely recognized for its emergency humanitarian aid to countries affected by disasters. In 2010, one of the most devastating earthquakes in modern history struck Haiti. In the first weeks following the tragedy, the agency provided food, drinking water, and medical supplies to the hardest-hit areas. With USAID's support, thousands of tons of provisions and medicine were delivered to Haiti, allowing rescue teams to operate under minimally acceptable safety conditions.

USAID’s agricultural initiatives are also often cited as a positive example. In several African countries (Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia), the organization funded training programs for local farmers on modern crop cultivation, irrigation, and food storage techniques. BBC, in its reports, noted that such programs helped increase agricultural yields in southern Kenya and establish school meal programs in small towns where food shortages for children from low-income families had been a persistent issue.

However, even large-scale and publicly promoted USAID projects have faced repeated criticism. An investigation by ProPublica revealed that a significant portion of the funds allocated for Haiti’s disaster relief disappeared within bureaucratic chains, and many planned initiatives, including the construction of permanent housing for victims, were never completed. The Guardian also pointed out that the exact figures for pledged and actual aid spending remained unclear, with some allocated funds failing to reach recipients or being redistributed in ways that differed from the original plans.

In The Afghanistan Papers, published by The Washington Post, the operations of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Afghanistan are examined as part of a broader issue of systemic inefficiency and corruption in international reconstruction projects. Leaked documents reveal that despite massive financial investments, many of USAID’s infrastructure and social initiatives failed to yield sustainable results due to several key obstacles.

The Washington Post describes how many Afghan officials and businessmen had limited expertise and often pursued personal interests, leveraging connections with international organizations for their own benefit. As a result, much of the funding allocated by USAID did not contribute to strengthening the local economy or social services but was instead siphoned off through bribes or outright fraud.

Despite years of presence and financial support from USAID, Afghanistan never achieved sustainable development. War, ineffective governance, and the lack of a comprehensive strategy from the U.S. and its allies undermined the outcomes of large-scale projects that could have otherwise laid the foundation for economic and social growth. USAID’s activities in Afghanistan exemplify a broader issue: when massive financial investments are not accompanied by sufficient oversight, the quality of implementation and real stability on the ground can remain at an alarmingly low level.

Afghanistan is far from the only example of how substantial financial investments aimed at strengthening democratic institutions can produce questionable effects. During Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, USAID supported a range of Ukrainian media outlets and journalists under the banner of "countering Russian propaganda." Some observers argue that rather than fostering objective coverage and an accurate depiction of events, such support may, in certain cases, have contributed to the creation of its own propaganda tools.

According to Reporters Without Borders, 9 out of 10 Ukrainian media outlets received international assistance, including funding from USAID.

Ukrainian media outlets are highly concerned about "losing their independence," warning that a halt in existing funding could "strengthen Russian propaganda." At the same time, they acknowledge the risk of new donors emerging, who might influence editorial policies and limit journalistic autonomy. However, the mere acknowledgment of potential external interference raises the question of how independently the current editorial policies were originally shaped.

This question arises from the fact that throughout three years of war, Ukrainian media continuously promoted the narrative of Russia's imminent defeat on the battlefield and the inevitable collapse of its economy under the pressure of sanctions. The idea of unwavering and long-term U.S. support for Ukraine was also emphasized. A statement made by Antony Blinken in November 2022, in which he assured that the U.S. would support Ukraine "for as long as it takes," was widely circulated by Ukrainian media and presented as a guarantee of victory, one that seemed almost inevitable. However, in March 2025, this statement evokes mixed feelings. With U.S. support, Ukraine has lost even more territory (beyond what was occupied by Russia before February 24, 2022), as well as countless lives, resources, and time. Even with the possibility of a ceasefire in the near future, the country's future remains uncertain.

The extensive support and funding of media projects aimed at shaping positive public opinion and strengthening international solidarity with Ukraine have sparked discussions about the degree of independence of some media outlets.

According to an investigation published by The Guardian on April 3, 2014, during Barack Obama's administration, USAID created a social network called ZunZuneo in the early 2010s. Initially, it was promoted as a "Cuban Twitter" and was meant to provide Cuban citizens with a convenient and seemingly harmless platform for communication. However, it later emerged that political motives were behind its launch: the network was intended to stir social unrest and create conditions for a possible political regime change in the country.

Funding for ZunZuneo was channeled through shell companies in offshore jurisdictions to conceal the American origin of the funds. Users, unaware of the network’s real objectives, shared personal data, while administrators analyzed the audience to determine how the platform could be used to disseminate content against the Cuban government. Despite gaining some popularity—by some estimates, its audience reached tens of thousands—the project was eventually shut down, and the ZunZuneo case became an example of covert interference in another country’s internal affairs under the guise of providing free access to information.

This case vividly illustrates how information technologies become instruments of influence, fitting into a broader strategy of "soft power." In contemporary global politics, soft power is no longer an abstract concept. It reflects the ability to shape the behavior and worldview of states or societies—not through military force or economic coercion, but through the appeal of values, humanitarian programs, cultural engagement, educational initiatives, and other methods that create a positive image of the donor country. Whether this combination is justified remains an open question.

As the history of USAID demonstrates, even the noblest intentions can be overshadowed by corruption, inefficiency, and hidden political agendas. The agency's activities in Afghanistan, Haiti, and other regions highlight that without transparency, strict oversight, and an understanding of local realities, even the most significant financial investments may fail to deliver the desired results. Moreover, covert political objectives—such as attempts to influence the internal affairs of other nations through projects like ZunZuneo—cast doubt on the sincerity of humanitarian initiatives.

Global crises such as climate change, pandemics, and growing inequality are not going away. Addressing them will require even greater international coordination and effort. To build trust and operate effectively, future aid organizations must rethink their approaches, placing greater emphasis on transparency, accountability, and the real needs of local communities. Only then can "soft power" become not a tool of hidden influence, but a true driver of positive change in the world.