Is U.S. President Donald Trump closer, in role and function, to Boris Yeltsin or to Vladimir Putin? The question is less about personality than about historical function: what type of leader emerges when a system begins to lose its internal balance?
For much of the twentieth century, the world was defined by a clear ideological divide. The United States and the Soviet Union were not merely rival powers; they embodied competing answers to a fundamental question: how should a modern society organize its economy and its people?
On one side stood capitalism—decentralized, market-driven, and adaptive. On the other stood communism—centralized, planned, and state-directed. Each claimed to correct the excesses of the other, yet both ultimately revealed their internal contradictions.
The Soviet Union did not collapse because it lacked power. At its peak, it commanded vast natural resources, a formidable industrial base, and one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Rather, it collapsed due to structural flaws embedded in its institutional design. By sidelining the “merchant”—the entrepreneurial engine of exchange and innovation—the system removed the incentives necessary for economic vitality. Production became rigid, allocation became politicized, and shortages coexisted with inefficiency and waste.
Over time, the deeper failure became psychological: citizens no longer believed that the system worked in their interest. When reform finally came, it arrived too late. The system had become too rigid to adapt.
An Inverted Imbalance
The United States today faces a different—yet structurally comparable—challenge.
Where the Soviet system marginalized the merchant, the American system has increasingly marginalized the worker—the wage earner who underpins the real economy. Since the late twentieth century, globalization, outsourcing, and financialization have fundamentally reshaped the U.S. economy. Capital has become highly mobile; labor has not. Manufacturing has shifted offshore, while the financial sector has expanded significantly in both scale and influence.
The result has not been economic collapse, but structural imbalance. The United States continues to generate immense wealth, yet that wealth has become increasingly concentrated. The relationship between productivity and wages has weakened, and for many Americans, economic growth no longer translates into improved living standards.
Data from the Federal Reserve highlight this shift clearly: the top 1% of households now control roughly one-third of total U.S. wealth—levels not seen in decades. Under Trump, inequality has continued to rise, with the top 1% holding approximately 31.7% of total household wealth, the highest share on record. Meanwhile, wage growth has stagnated for large segments of the population, and economic insecurity remains widespread.
This is not merely an economic imbalance; it is fundamentally a crisis of legitimacy. As in the late Soviet period, the issue is not only material but psychological. Polling data confirm this erosion of trust: around 60% of Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, while approximately 61% of Russians—despite war and sanctions—believe their country is on the right track. A growing share of Americans no longer believes that the system operates in their interest.
Leaders as Symptoms, Not Causes
Political figures often emerge not as architects of systemic change, but as expressions of underlying structural strain.
In the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin rose at a moment when the system had already lost coherence. He did not create the crisis; he embodied it. His tenure accelerated the collapse of the old order but also unleashed a chaotic transition. State assets were rapidly privatized—often at a fraction of their value—giving rise to an oligarchic class. For many Russians, the 1990s were not a period of liberation but one of instability and dislocation.
The rise of Vladimir Putin marked a different phase. He reasserted state authority, recentralized power, and restored a degree of stability. The Russian economy recovered, unemployment declined, and the state regained control over strategic sectors. Whatever the long-term implications of this model, it addressed the immediate crisis of systemic breakdown.
Trump’s political trajectory reflects a different context, yet a comparable structural moment. His support has been drawn disproportionately from constituencies that feel economically and culturally marginalized. His rhetoric challenges trade frameworks, alliances, and governance structures that many perceive as distant or unresponsive.
The comparison is not one of equivalence, but of sequence. Trump appears less as a stable endpoint and more as a transitional figure—closer to Yeltsin than to Putin. He represents the type of leader that emerges when a system begins to break its own internal rules.
The Petrodollar Cushion
For decades, the United States has been shielded from the full consequences of its internal imbalances by a unique global advantage: the central role of the dollar.
Since the 1970s, global oil trade has been largely denominated in U.S. dollars, generating sustained demand for dollar-denominated assets. Today, the dollar still accounts for roughly 60% of global foreign exchange reserves, and U.S. financial markets remain the deepest and most liquid in the world.
This system has enabled the United States to run persistent fiscal deficits while maintaining relatively low borrowing costs. It has functioned as a financial cushion, absorbing pressures that might otherwise have forced earlier structural adjustment. Yet such cushions—like empires—are not permanent.
In recent years, a gradual shift has emerged. China has expanded the use of its currency in energy transactions, while Russia has reduced its reliance on the dollar following sanctions. Other countries have begun exploring alternative settlement mechanisms. While still incremental, these developments point toward a more diversified global monetary system.
The Missing Response
In contrast to the approach taken by Vladimir Putin—who reduced Russia’s public debt to around 20% of GDP and restored fiscal discipline—Trump has proposed no comprehensive strategy to address the U.S. national debt, which is approaching $40 trillion, with interest payments rising as a share of federal expenditure.
Rather than confronting this structural burden, Trump has advocated expanding defense spending, thereby intensifying fiscal pressures at a time when the “petrodollar cushion” is gradually weakening. The combination of rising debt, increased military expenditure, and the absence of structural reform renders the United States more vulnerable to financial shocks than at any point since the 2008 financial crisis.
Political polarization further complicates the landscape, limiting the capacity for sustained policy coordination and increasing vulnerability should global demand for dollar assets decline more rapidly than anticipated.
Structural Lessons and the Transitional Moment
The key lesson from the experience of the Soviet Union is not that great powers collapse suddenly, but that they weaken when their systems cease to align with their foundational principles.
In this context, the Yeltsin analogy carries a critical implication: transitional leaders do not resolve the crises they embody—they prepare the ground for what follows. What comes next depends on whether the subsequent phase produces genuine rebalancing—addressing the divergence between capital and labor, and between growth and shared prosperity—or merely reinforces the existing order in a more rigid form.
The Soviet precedent suggests that systems rarely reform themselves until the cost of inaction becomes undeniable. The United States has not yet reached that threshold—but it is closer than it once appeared.
Addressing this challenge will require rebalancing the relationship between capital and labor, restoring wage-linked prosperity, and stabilizing the trajectory of public debt—issues that neither political camp has yet confronted with sufficient seriousness.
Ultimately, the question is not whether the United States will face a moment of reckoning, but whether it will recognize it in time to shape its own outcome.
Most read
Read also
