CFR Panel Draws Stark Parallels Between Post-Soviet Russia and Trump-Era America

On Monday afternoon in New York, the Council on Foreign Relations hosted a compelling session titled “Reflecting on Post-Soviet Russia.” The panel featured Professor Timothy Snyder (University of Toronto, Yale University; Senior Fellow, CFR), Professor Angela Stent (Brookings Institution; Non-Resident Fellow, CFR), and Peter Pomerantsev (SNF Agora Institute, Johns Hopkins; Senior Fellow, CFR). The discussion was moderated by Professor Kimberly Martin (Professor of Political Science, Columbia University), with opening remarks from Shannon K. O’Neil (Senior Vice President and Director of Studies, CFR). 

The conversation opened with unexpected and sobering comparisons between post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s and the United States under the Trump administration. 

Professor Snyder, who conceived the session, began with a jarring list of trends observed in both contexts: 

• “It is stunning that Trump won 65% of the evangelical vote.” 

  
  

• In both the U.S. and 1990s Russia, crises undermined independent news and opened space for state propaganda. 

  
  

• “There is drastic inequality of wealth... taking what you can under the shelter of government influence.” 

  
  

• An oligarchical power structure, with “a president who is rich and wants to be richer,” surrounded by wealthier allies able to give him what he wants. 

  
  

• A shift in international politics: from seeking united democratic influence to asserting “multipolarity” and individual power. 

“It’s not that Russia is becoming more powerful on the battlefield in Ukraine,” Snyder emphasized, “it’s that the U.S. positions itself not as a democratic superpower, but as a state seeking personal gain.” 

Angela Stent traced Russia’s political decline from Gorbachev to Putin. Under Yeltsin, she noted, television shows like Political Puppets still criticized the government, and there was a measure of press freedom. But with the rise of oligarchs came media consolidation, and Yeltsin’s hand-picked successor — Vladimir Putin — promised immunity for Yeltsin’s family and kept that promise. 

“Yeltsin’s legacy is that he gave us Vladimir Putin.” 

The panelists agreed that “Putin-isation” of the U.S. is underway. Pomerantsev, with his background in media, described American political discourse as a reality show — built not on ideas but provocation and reaction.

 “Religion is about belonging rather than belief,” he said, “where the foreigner becomes the enemy.” He warned that without structural changes to how information is presented and discussed, reform will be impossible. 

A moderator asked whether the speed of authoritarian shifts in the U.S. — within just 90 days of the Trump administration’s return — mattered compared to the slower consolidation under Putin. “We’re talking about speed,” said Pomerantsev. “It reminds me more of Poland than of Orban’s Hungary. Putin moved slowly. In America, there are rules and institutions to destroy — which accelerates the process.” 

Stent referenced Project 2025 and noted: “When you listen to people like Stephen Miller, you understand what actions are coming next, especially regarding immigration.” 

Snyder added: “The U.S. is doing what Putin’s Russia didn’t — making the state ineffective. Planes malfunction. Measles outbreaks spread. The American state is malfunctioning.” Unlike Russia, which projected order and strength, he said, “The U.S. seems increasingly futureless — and that’s the common denominator with Russia now.” 

In a chilling exchange, Snyder distinguished a key difference between Trump and Putin: “Putin understands the concept of sovereignty. Trump does not. You laugh, but he genuinely doesn’t understand why Ukraine wants to be independent.” 

The term “powerministries” arose — a nod to how post-Soviet Russian institutions fell under authoritarian control. In the U.S., Stent noted: “The administration doesn’t yet control the agencies — intelligence, defense — but that’s the goal.” 

On how to combat disinformation in a fragmented media environment, Pomerantsev said: “We have platforms and we have people. The question isn’t how — it’s who, and when.” 

On a personal note, Snyder shared that together with his wife, he left the U.S. last year.

Answering a question on how to fight against authoritarianism, he said: “Fighting of any kind requires durability. You have to stick to it and keep going.” 

Asked if the recent election of Pope Leo XIV was meant to “cheer people up,” Snyder replied: “There’s a long tradition — now represented by JD Vance — of claiming that only ‘your kind’ counts as a neighbor. It’s nationalism through scripture.” As to the choice of Pope Leo XIV, he said: “I think this choice was a thoughtful one, it was not an accident by the Cardinals — will it lead to something useful? I don’t know.” 

On the Trump administration’s apparent incompetence, Snyder was blunt: “The oath of loyalty takes us back to Nazi Germany. From an Eastern European perspective, it’s surreal to see such incompetent people take power. The Department of Defense, for instance, is supposed to manage risk, not be staffed with yes-men.” 

He concluded: “Think of this administration as a reality show where every episode ends with ‘dismantling your enemies.’”